REP. HYDE: Very well. The committee will now consider article
three. Are there any amendments to article three? If not, I will --

REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman?

REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Virginia.

REP. SCOTT: Are you asking for -- well, I move to strike the
last word.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

REP. SCOTT: Well, are there any amendments --

REP. HYDE: There are no amendments. It is the chair's
intention, when we finish this article, to adjourn for the evening and
come back at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. I just wanted to announce
that for scheduling purposes. Now, does anyone seek recognition? Was
that Mr. Scott? Yes, Mr. Scott.

REP. SCOTT: I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think we ought to
reflect a bit about the facts on this article. We have things like a
false affidavit and false statements. The gentleman from New York,
Mr. Nadler, has spared me the necessity of quoting from the dictionary
about certain words. But Monica Lewinsky was not provided with a
contorted definition the judges and lawyers argued over. She said
what she believed certain words to mean. And there's evidence in this
case the tape recording, when she didn't know she was being recorded
or being set up by Linda Tripp, she said what she thought certain
words meant. And Linda Tripp, who knew they were being recorded,
tried to get her to change her mind about the definition, but Monica
Lewinsky wouldn't.

We also, on the witness tampering, there has to be a witness for
there to be tampering. And after you review the conflicting, uncross-
examined hearsay and dubious inferences used to make the other
elements of this article, you still have to place the articles -- the
allegations in the context of impeachment. Our authority to do what
some wanted to do but couldn't do at the polls -- that is, defeat Bill
Clinton -- that authority is limited to treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors.

Now, "high" is a word that doesn't really -- isn't really used
very much in America, because it's an English word against the state.
Our experts at our hearing also told us to pay close attention to
another word in the phrase, and that is "other." It's treason,
bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors; that is, treason,
bribery and stuff like that and its effect against our government.
That is, there has to be a subversion of the Constitution. There has
to be a danger in the president staying in office; that is, the
president must be removed because of treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanor. He will later be subject to the rule of law,
just like everybody else.

And when we review these allegations to see if they are
impeachable offenses, we have to remember what impeachment is for.
It's to protect our nation. So we look at the history of impeachment
and look at what kinds of offenses have been impeachable offenses and
we look at Watergate and see the corrupt use of the FBI, the CIA,
Internal Revenue, official use of those agencies and lying about it
have been impeachable offenses in Watergate.

But $500 million tax fraud, where the evidence, according to
those who were there, was overwhelming, and certainly stronger than
the hearsay and inferences we're relying on today, but they did not
support the article involving half-million-dollar tax fraud, which was
certainly a crime, a serious crime, but not a high crime.

Furthermore, our experts unanimously agreed that the term
"treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" does not
cover all felonies. So we cannot remove a president because he,
quote, "failed to faithfully execute the laws" or when we can't stand
him being president anymore. The rule of law restricts our authority
to act to treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So even if we believe the hearsay and inferences we have before
us, there's been no showing that the conduct constitutes a threat to
our constitutional form of government, and that's why historians and
legal scholars have told us that whether or not these allegations are
true, they are not impeachable offenses.

I yield back the balance of my time.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. I rise in support of the article of impeachment and recognize
myself for five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this article of impeachment, article three, is the
one that relates to obstruction of justice by President Clinton.
There are seven specifically-mentioned instances of alleged
obstruction of justice that are contained in this article, and it does
have the words "one or more" in that so we don't have the problem of
making that interpretation.

There will be members on the Republican side of the aisle that
will specifically address themselves to each of these instances of
obstruction of justice. But I think that if we looked at it from the
criminal context, which we're not here, but there have got to be three
elements of what makes obstruction of justice.

First, there's got to be a pending federal judicial proceeding.
There was in this case with the Paula Jones civil rights lawsuit.
Secondly, the defendant had to know of the proceeding. Mr. Clinton
was the civil defendant in that lawsuit. He'd been served the papers
on it. And third, that the defendant acted corruptly and with intent
to obstruct and interfere with the proceeding or the due
administration of justice.

The first of the seven instances that are contained in article
three states that "On or about December 17th, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights
action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that
proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading."

In his deposition testimony in January of this year, the
president said that he spoke with Monica Lewinsky before Christmas and
that while he was not sure that she would be called to testify in the
Paula Jones civil suit, she might qualify or something like that. The
president denied encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie by filing a false
affidavit. But in answer 18 to the 81 questions submitted to this
committee, he did say that he told her that, quote, "Other witnesses
had executed affidavits and there was a chance that they would not
have to testify," unquote. "Hint, hint."

Ms. Lewinsky was more emphatic on the subject in her grand jury
testimony. When she asked the president what she should do if she was
called to testify, he said, "Well, maybe you can sign an affidavit."
"The point would be to deter or prevent me from being disposed so that
they could range anywhere between just somehow mentioning innocuous
things or going as far as maybe having to deny any kind of
relationship." That's what Monica Lewinsky told the grand jury.

She further stated that she was 100 percent sure, 100 percent
sure, that the president suggested she might want to sign an affidavit
to avoid testifying. And that was to an independent counsel
interview, false statements of which are a federal crime. Ms.
Lewinsky also noted that the president never explicitly instructed her
to lie about the matter; rather, since the president never told her to
file an affidavit detailing the true nature of their sexual
relationship, which would only invite humiliation and prove damaging
to the president in the Paula Jones case, she contextually understood
that the president wanted her to lie. That also is in the OIC
referral.

Furthermore, attorneys for Paula Jones were seeking evidence of
sexual relationships the president may have had with other state or
federal employees. Such information is often deemed relevant in
sexual harassment lawsuits to help prove the underlying claim of the
plaintiff, and Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that Paula Jones was
entitled to this information for purposes of discovery.

Consequently, when the president encouraged Monica Lewinsky to
file an affidavit, he knew that it would have to be false for Ms.
Lewinsky to avoid testifying. If she filed a truthful affidavit, one
acknowledging a sexual relationship with the president, she certainly
would have been called as a deposition witness and her subsequent
truthful testimony would have been damaging to the president both
politically as well as legally.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman?

REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from
Michigan rise?

REP. CONYERS: I rise to strike the last word.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. CONYERS: In reviewing article three that is before us,
obstruction of justice, I review the seven clauses, and it's almost
like we've come here this evening and have never examined the facts in
the matter.

These have all been gone through repeatedly. Each one can be very
carefully answered.

The filing of an affidavit by Ms. Lewinsky. Is there anyone here
that doesn't know that she swore that no one ever asked her to lie and
that the decision as to what the affidavit should contain was a
decision made by her alone and that the president said that Ms.
Lewinsky might be able to avoid testifying by filing a limited but
truthful affidavit, a perfectly legal activity on his part and, as a
matter of fact, what her own lawyer ended up doing?

In the Clause 7, statements to aides, the president made
statements to his staff on January 21st, 23rd, and 26th, in order to
protect his family from discovering the Lewinsky relationship. He
could not have known that his staff would be called at that time
before the Office of Independent Counsel's grand jury. The
president's denial of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky to his staff
was after he had already made the same denial to the public. The
president was not then singling out his staff; he denied the affair to
everyone. So he was not denying the affair to his staff with the idea
that they would be called before the independent counsel grand jury.

Clause 6, attempting to influence Betty Currie. We've heard
repeated testimony that the president of the United States did not
attempt to influence Betty Currie's testimony in any proceeding when
he spoke with her on the Sunday and the Tuesday, January 18th and
20th, respectively, before the news regarding Ms. Lewinsky broke in
the media. The president was concerned about the media reaction to
what he knew would be a leak of his deposition testimony. He could
not have known about the OIC investigation, so therefore he could not
have thought that Ms. Currie was or could be on a witness list.

With reference to statements by the president's lawyers, Clause
5, there's no evidence that the president knowingly allowed his lawyer
to make false representations in the Jones deposition. In fact, the
president testified that he was not focusing on his attorney when he
made the statements. Instead, he was concentrating on his own
testimony in his deposition.

There's no evidence, none, that the president encouraged his attorney
to make those statements or even had any idea that his attorney would
make them for him.

Here with go with Clause 4, the job search. How many times has
this been put into evidence that there is nothing connecting the
efforts to help Ms. Lewinsky find a job with Ms. Lewinsky's submission
of an affidavit. She's testified that no one ever promised her a job.
That may be the 45th time that phrase has been uttered in this room.
If the president were intent on getting her a job, he clearly would
have done that and could have done that. The fact that he did not
know shows that there was no linkage with her affidavit. And then, of
course, we have the gift situation, in which all witnesses agree the
job search started long before Monica Lewinsky was named on the Jones
witness list.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put my statement into
the record at this point.

REP. HUTCHINSON: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address the second
paragraph of this article of impeachment. The second paragraph
provides that on or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton
corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action
brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony
if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. This has
reference to a call that occurred on December 17th at 2 a.m. or 2:30
a.m. in the morning by the president of the United States. The
president of the United States learns that Monica Lewinsky is on the
witness list, and he calls her, first to purportedly advise that Betty

Currie's brother had passed away, but of course the real purpose was
to advise her that, bad news, your name is on the witness list. And
they discuss this. And he went ahead to say, "If you are subpoenaed,"
which, of course, he knew was coming, "you should contact Betty." And
then he told her, "You can always say you were coming to see Betty or
that you were bringing me letters," end quote, according to the
testimony of Monica Lewinsky.

And this is very important because here you have a witness --
without any question is going to be a witness in a federal civil
rights case -- civil rights suit. And in this case, the president
personally calls this witness to let them know that they are going to
be subpoenaed, that you are on the witness list, and to tell them how
to handle it and to encourage her not to provide truthful testimony
but to provide false testimony and to provide a cover story for her,
suggesting, "you can always say." And this is confirmed in the grand
jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky.

Now, the president denies this in part. He admits that the
telephone conversation took place, and so there is some corroboration
to it, but he has no specific recollection. When Monica Lewinsky has
a clear recollection and the president has no specific recollection, I
think that the weight of the evidence goes to the testimony of Monica
Lewinsky.

Secondly, it is consistent with their pattern of deception.
Prior to this, they had arranged the cover story.

And I understand that's not in a legal context, but when it moved into
the legal context, they continued that scheme to cover up in the legal
context by suggesting the same cover story would apply in testimony
under oath in the civil rights case. And so there's no dispute about
the call; it is consistent with the pattern of deceit. There is a
motive, obviously, for the president to encourage the perjury. And
then it is also consistent with the false affidavit that is ultimately
provided by Monica Lewinsky.

I would also call upon the testimony of Mr. Jordan, who confirmed
in this case, in his testimony before the grand jury, that President
Clinton knew that Monica Lewinsky was going to execute the false
affidavit, and he kept the president very closely apprised as to every
development with that affidavit.

And so when I look at this matter from the standpoint of clear
and convincing evidence, I believe that you have clear testimony, and
because of the corroboration, because of the motivation behind it, the
other testimony of Vernon Jordan, the consistency, that this paragraph
and this allegation does rise to obstruction of justice by clear and
convincing evidence.

And I yield back.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired.

For what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?

REP. SCHUMER: Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. SCHUMER: I thank the gentleman.

And let me say that on the -- particularly on the second article,
while I certainly believe that even assuming the facts that Mr. Starr
presented and Mr. Schippers reiterated, it doesn't rise to the level
of impeachment. I can see the argument among my colleagues that in a
basic criminal context or a civil context there's a strong argument on
the other side.

And in Article I, to a somewhat lesser extent, I think the
gentleman from Massachusetts summed that up as well, that yeah, it's
sort of trivial, but you might be able to make a very legalistic
argument, albeit one that wouldn't come close to the level of
impeachment.

But when we get to Articles III and IV, we really begin to reach.
Article III reaches, Article IV reaches and almost gets into the
theater of the absurd.

But today we're here to address Article III. I would submit that
based on a standard of clear and convincing evidence, which the
majority professes to use, we're not even close. Yes, you can string
together facts and by surmise say, "This was the motivation." But
there is at the very least an equally plausible explanation that there
was a different motivation. And there is not one direct fact that
shows that the motivation attributed, for instance, by the gentleman
from Arkansas to the president is the motivation.

How can we submit Articles of Impeachment based on surmise? Even Mr.
Starr, when he was here, admitted it was surmise.

So take the job hunt. Yes, there was a job hunt. We all agree
there was a job hunt. We all agree it started before there was any
knowledge of a judicial process, of a Paula Jones suit or later a
grand jury, and continued after. We all agreed it was a very similar
job search.

And we all agree there are two plausible explanations after it
became clear that there was a Paula Jones lawsuit and a deposition:
one, to get Monica Lewinsky away from the scene to prevent the
continuation of an illicit affair; and two, to keep Monica Lewinsky
quiet before a judicial proceeding.

One explanation, I would argue, is as plausible as the next. In
fact, the noncriminal explanation is more plausible because it began
before we even knew there was a possible judicial intervention. And
yet the majority has the temerity to say: "Oh, no. We know by clear
and convincing evidence that he was doing it to prevent her from
testifying." I ask you, where is your direct evidence? Where is it
more than surmise? And you have an obligation, in my judgment, to
make sure that it is more than surmise if you are asking us to
impeach, if you are asking America to impeach its president.

Same thing with the Monica Lewinsky story. Yes, it is true. We
all admit that the president and Monica Lewinsky had a cover story; a
story that was not truthful, that was of lies. They had it once
again, before -- before any knowledge of a grand jury, any knowledge
of a deposition.

And again, just on the basis of surmise, the majority says, "Oh,
yes, they did it to deceive in the deposition and in the grand jury,"
That's not good enough, ladies and gentlemen. You need more than that
to be clear and convincing in a court of law, and you certainly need
more than that to impeach a president.

And finally, because my time is ending -- and finally, listen to
this one, ladies and gentlemen. "The president didn't tell the truth
to his Cabinet about Monica Lewinsky because he thought they might
later be called into a grand jury, and he wanted to mislead them."

I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired.

REP. SCHUMER: I ask unanimous consent for an additional --

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, the gentleman will be
granted an additional minute; hearing none, so ordered.

REP. SCHUMER: I thank the gentleman.

Imagine putting account in here that says, well, we somehow think
that the president would lie to his Cabinet -- would not tell the
truth to his Cabinet, when he had no idea there'd be a deposition and
no idea that there would be a grand jury proceeding, because he wanted
them not to tell the truth. We can do a lot better. We must do a lot
better than that!

This is a string, put together piece by piece, that leads to a
conclusion that is so demonstrably stretched, that when people ask,
why do some out there believe that the motivation here is more
partisan than coming directly on the facts -- I would not argue that
about counts one and two -- but when you look at count three, and
particularly at count four, it is logical, not provable, but logical
to say --

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has again expired.

REP. SCHUMER: -- some people on the other side are out to get
the man regardless of the facts.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from
South Carolina rise?

REP. INGLIS: Strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. INGLIS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to bring out
some facts about Paragraph 3 in this part of this article. Here we're
talking about the scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed
in that civil rights action brought against the president. And of
course we heard from minority counsel that -- and the president's
counsel that this was not orchestrated by the president and,
therefore, they would dispute this claim in this particular article.
But I think that the evidence clearly indicates, clearly indicates an
effort here, a scheme to conceal this evidence, and in this case, it's
supported by a telephone record. And of course, this is indicative, I
think, of the excellent investigative work that's been done here.

So what happened is the -- there's testimony from Ms. Lewinsky
that she was concerned about the gifts, she raised the issue with the
president. The president told her that he -- about the suggestion
that possibly she would do something with the gifts. The president,
according to Monica Lewinsky said, "I don't know" or "Let me think
about that." And then later that day, Ms. Lewinsky got a call from
Ms. Currie, according, to Ms. Lewinsky, saying, "I understand you have
something to give me" or something like "The president said you may
have something to give me."

Now, on this point Ms. Currie, as Mr. Schippers pointed out, has
a fuzzy memory, and she reported that actually she couldn't remember,
but the best she can remember she thinks that Monica Lewinsky called
her, Betty Currie.

But that is contradicted by a key piece of evidence, and that key
piece of evidence is the cell phone record of Ms. Currie's phone
showing that she placed a call, within hours after she left the White
House on that day, to Monica Lewinsky, and with that evidence it's
clear that the call was initiated by Ms. Currie to Monica Lewinsky.
And of course, that is further buttressed by the fact that why else
would Ms. Currie call Ms. Lewinsky and ask if she had something for
her to pick up? And why would she take that box of gifts and put it
under her bed? These are not normal things that people do. You don't
call up somebody, ask if you have something for me, and then take the
box and put it under your bed. It just defies common sense to think
that it was the other way around; in other words, that Ms. Currie was
-- or that Ms. Lewinsky was initiating the transfer here.

It's pretty clear from this evidence -- and I think clear and
convincing from this evidence, that the president must have been
involved in a scheme to get those gifts from Monica Lewinsky into the
hands of his trusted secretary, Betty Currie, and that was part of a
scheme to obstruct justice in this case, to stop the discovery of this
information.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I think it's clear that this particular
paragraph of the articles of impeachment is clearly substantiated by
the evidence.

I would yield back the balance of my time.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired.

For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Delahunt, rise?

REP. DELAHUNT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I --

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. DELAHUNT: I'm really pleased that my friend, Mr. Inglis,
has raised this particular evidence because I would suggest that this
is exactly the peril of this particular approach that this committee
has adopted -- never hearing once from a witness, never hearing from
Ms. Currie or Ms. Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan or anyone else. Shame on
us! Just simply taking written documents and suggesting that that
constitutes evidence -- totally unlike what occurred during the

Watergate inquiry where, as Charles Wiggins, a Republican member in
the minority, told us that they heard from John Dean, from Mr.
Haldeman and Mr. Erlichman. Shame on us! We did have that
responsibility, and now we are doing it real sloppy.

Let me tell you, I did my own homework on this particular point,
Mr. Inglis. You're right -- it's undisputed that Ms. Lewinsky
returned the gifts to Ms. Currie, and she did so on December 28th.
The key question is whether the president asked Ms. Currie to retrieve
the gifts or whether Ms. Lewinsky made her own arrangements to return
the gifts without Mr. Clinton's involvement.

On Wednesday, the independent counsel released a statement to the
press, which I would submit into the record --

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, so ordered.

REP. DELAHUNT: Taking issue with Mr. Ruff's presentation to this
committee, and claiming that the president's involvement is
substantiated by the billing records from Ms. Currie's telephone
account, just as you mentioned.

The records -- and Mr. Schippers, as you indicated, used these in
his closing statement to the committee -- indicated that that one-
minute call was places from Ms. Currie's cell phone to Ms. Lewinsky's
telephone number at 3:32 p.m. on December 28th.

In his press release, the independent counsel claims that Ms.
Currie placed this call for the purpose of arranging to pick up the
gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. In his closing statement to the committee,
Mr. Schippers made much of the document. He said that it -- and I
quote "corroborates Monica Lewinsky, and proves conclusively that Ms.
Currie called Monica from her cell phone several hours after she left
the White House."

Why did Betty Currie pick up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, Mr.
Schippers asked. And he answered: "The facts, it's the facts." Oh,
if we only had facts. The facts strongly suggest the president
directed her to do so. And that his support for the charge, is that
the president sought to conceal evidence.

But know what? There's a problem with this so-called evidence.
It is directly and explicitly contradicted by the FBI report of the
interview with Monica Lewinsky taken this past July, on July 27th of
this year. That report, which appears in the first appendix to the
Starr referral on page 1,396 -- as you know, there are 60,000 pages in
there, so I don't blame Mr. Schippers for missing it, and I certainly
don't suggest he would try to mislead the committee.

And I'm quoting: "Lewinsky met Currie on 28th Street outside
Lewinsky's apartment, at about 2 p.m. and gave Currie the box of
gifts." Not at 3:32, but at 2 p.m. was the transfer of those gifts,
Mr. Inglis; an hour-and-a-half discrepancy.

This raises the following question. If the gift exchange had
already taken place --

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired.

REP. DELAHUNT: I ask unanimous consent for an additional two
minutes.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.

REP. DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This raises the
following question. If the gift exchange had already taken place at 2
p.m., how could the telephone call placed at 3:32, have been for the
purpose of arranging it? This is what I would suggest, some would
conclude, is a considerable inconsistency, one of the many troubling
inconsistencies in the documents themselves.

Yet, this potentially exculpatory fact, taken from materials,
sworn-under-oath materials, documents -- 60,000 pages of them -- from
the possession of Mr. Starr, was never acknowledged by Mr. Starr, nor
unfortunately was it acknowledged by Mr. Schippers.

Both of them -- and I'm not suggesting it was intentional --
affirmatively led the committee to believe the call was for the
purpose of arranging for Ms. Currie to pick up the gifts. And now,
now we are preparing to vote on an article of impeachment that is
substantially based on that telephone call.

What was the purpose of the call? We don't know. It appears
that the investigators never asked, and we have never had the
opportunity to ask, because we have not heard from the witnesses
themselves. And this is no way to conduct an inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
It's a disgrace, and it's an insult to the rule of law.

REP. CANNON: Would the gentleman yield just for a question as to
what the citation was on that, Mr. Delahunt? On the page 1,300 and
something as I recall, but --

REP. DELAHUNT: It's page 1,396. I yield.

REP. CANNON: Thank you.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has again expired. For
what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia rise?

REP. BARR: To strike the last word.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, witnesses and
defendants -- witnesses who are targets of investigations, and
defendants in cases frequently -- have a very clear motive to take
steps to either ensure that adverse witnesses don't appear in court,
in order to testify against them, to provide testimony in other times
and places, or to change in some way their testimony so it is either
not damaging or less damaging to the target or the defendant.

That being a fact of human nature, and the federal government for
many years having knowledge of that characteristic of defendants and
targets of investigations, has had on the books in Title 18, the

Criminal Code, provisions of our criminal laws that address that and
seek to prevent or punish those who in fact take steps to what is
termed in the eyes of the law, "tamper with witnesses."

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, that statute is found at 18 U.S.C.,
that is the Criminal Code, Section 1512 and in addition, Section 1515,
which contains definitions that are relevant to that provision of the
Code.

In essence, Mr. Chairman -- and this is in large part the essence
also of paragraph four of this third article of impeachment -- we are
looking at the provision of Title 18, Section 1512, that provides in
part, "whoever knowingly engages in misleading conduct towards another
person with intent to influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any
person in an official proceeding; causes or induces any person to
withhold testimony, evade legal process, or be absent from an official
proceeding, or hinder, delay or prevent the communication of
information, is guilty of a criminal offense."

Turning to Section 1515, one finds a common-sense definition of
"misleading conduct," as well as common-sense definitions of
"official proceedings," and "to corruptly persuade."

When one then turns to the evidence in this case, and the
evidence regarding the so-called job search, one fact that immediately
jumps to mind is: why would the most powerful human being on the face
of the earth, that is, the president of the United States of America,
and one of the most prominent and in legal circles in Washington, most
powerful private attorneys, drop essentially everything they are doing
-- and the president constantly reminds us how important his work is,
as indeed it is -- and conduct a job search for what might be termed
at best a second- or third-rate employee?

Vernon Jordan testified that he had indeed conducted quite a few
job searches for individuals of note to him: the former mayor of the
City of New York; a talented attorney from Aik (ph) & Gump, one of the
pre-eminent law firms in Washington; a Harvard Business School
graduate; Monica Lewinsky.

That in and of itself, contrary to the pattern of activity of
this particular witness -- and by the way, that testimony was
controverted by the testimony of a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, Mr.
Perlman (ph), who said Mr. Jordan had never called him about a job
search -- raises a very legitimate presumption, that there was some
reason other than a legitimate job search, for Monica Lewinsky that
occupied considerable attention of the president and Vernon Jordan.
And one finds it indeed in the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, that the
president suggested to her, that it might be appropriate if she took a
job in New York, and he would help her find that through Vernon
Jordan, somebody that heretofore was unknown to Ms. Lewinsky, that
this might cause her to avoid being called as a witness or available
as a witness.

And indeed, that is what happened. "Mission accomplished," in
the words of Mr. Jordan. I believe very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that
we have here a very substantial case involving a violation of Title
18, the U.S. Criminal Code, Section 1512, tampering with a witness,
clearly involving --

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for two additional
minutes.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.

REP. BARR: I thank the chairman. Involving an effort, a
deliberate effort, a knowing effort, a willful effort, on the part of
the president, to cause Ms. Lewinsky or to take steps to cause Ms.
Lewinsky, once it became known that she would be a witness, that she
had in fact been subpoenaed.

The other side might make some hay out of the fact that Ms.
Lewinsky really had been involved in a job search for quite some time.
And indeed, that is the case, since July of 1997. What certainly
raises legitimate suspicions and fits within the pattern of activity
here, and the evidence, though, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that this
went from a back burner effort by a second- or third-rate employee of
the government, to a very accelerated effort, involving a flurry of
activity by Mr. Jordan, by the CEO of a major Fortune 500 corporation,
involving indeed the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, all set
into motion after it became known -- not before, but after it became
known -- that Ms. Lewinsky would indeed be a witness and provide
testimony in the Paula Jones case.

These are appropriate, reasonable, common-sense conclusions,
which even in a criminal proceeding, a trier of fact would be
instructed by a United States District Court judge, they could
properly conclude based on the evidence, which is very voluminous, set
forward, summarized yesterday by Mr. Schippers, and uncontroverted.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is a more than substantial
basis, a more than adequate basis for paragraph four of Article III,
involving tampering with a federal witness by the president of the
United States of America.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Your time has again expired. For what
purpose does the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler arise?

REP. NADLER: To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. NADLER: Mr. Chairman, the recklessness of the Republican
majority in this proceeding, is really illustrated by Articles III and
IV. I believe, as I've stated many times, that Articles I and II are
not sufficient, they don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses,
even if provable, and there's not sufficient evidence.

But numbers III and IV, frankly, don't pass the giggle test.
They're quite simply laughable, as well as outrageous.

What is number three, Article III? A grab bag of different
allegations: "The president encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to file a false
affidavit." A fair reading of the evidence says only one thing; she
asked how she could avoid testifying, and he said: "Well, other
witnesses have been allowed to -- not to testify in person by
submitting an affidavit. So maybe they'll let you do that, too."

There is no evidence, no testimony from anybody, that he asked
her to file a false affidavit, as opposed to simply suggesting that
she could file an affidavit, instead of appearing in front of the
grand jury, which she was understandably nervous about.

Indeed, she testifies he never asked her to lie. There is no
contradictory testimony at all. Yet the surmise, as Mr. Schumer put
it, is sufficient to make that part of an article of impeachment.

The job search -- the job search, helping someone find a job --
is not illegal. It's generally considered praiseworthy. There is no
evidence whatsoever connecting the efforts to help Ms. Lewinsky find a
job with her submission of an affidavit or her testimony. She
testified that no one ever promised her a job.

The suggestion to tie them together, we know, came from Linda
Tripp. We know that from the tapes.

We know if the president were really intent on getting her a job,
he clearly could have done that. He is, after all, quite a powerful
person. The fact that he did not shows there was no linkage with her
affidavit. What linkage do we have with her affidavit? None at all
except surmise and the fact that the efforts started well before there
was any knowledge that she might be called at a witness. That she
might have to file an affidavit or appear indicates that there was no
connection beyond which, even the surmise -- the surmise is: "Why
else would the president or Betty Currie or Vernon Jordan be
interested in helping this young woman? It must be a corrupt motive."

Well, no it mustn't be. Betty Currie might have -- Betty Currie
was a friend, we know, of Vernon Jordan. Betty Currie asked Vernon
Jordan to help her. Why would Betty Currie ask Vernon Jordan to help
Monica Lewinsky find a job? Well, maybe because Monica Lewinsky asked
her to, and Betty was a friend of hers. That's as logical as any
other explanation.

That's as logical as the sinister explanation you gentlemen
posit, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. This is a classic
example of the logical fallacy some of us learned about in college:
"After this; therefore, because of this." After this; therefore,
because of perhaps a lot of different reasons.

Then we have the gifts. Monica Lewinsky returned -- gave gifts
to Betty Currie: "It must be because the president was trying to hide
the evidence. It must be because the president asked Betty Currie to
retrieve the gifts" -- except that Betty Currie says that's not the
case. Betty Currie testifies that Monica Lewinsky was the one who
asked her to get the gifts.

But we're told there was this phone call. Now, there is no
evidence of what was said in that phone call. But what's the
difference? We can surmise what we want to surmise. We can pretend
it makes a difference. Now, Mr. Delahunt destroyed that by showing
the phone call came an hour and a half after the gifts were retrieved
or were given to Monica Lewinsky. That's proof positive it hasn't
nothing to do -- so there is no evidence whatsoever of an evil motive
for giving these gifts.

But we have also been subjected to outrageous leaps of logic,
because if in fact these gifts were being given by Monica Lewinsky to
Betty Currie because the president wanted to get evidence away from
her, why would he be giving her additional gifts on the same day?

If he's trying to get the evidence away from her, why is he giving her
more evidence?

Well, there's outrageous leaps of logic to answer this. Mr.
Schippers tells us, for example, that he intends to deal with the fact
that --

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time is expired.

REP. NADLER: Ask unanimous consent for an additional two
minutes?

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.

REP. NADLER: Thank you.

Mr. Schippers attempted to deal with the fact that the president
gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts after Betty Currie supposedly
retrieved the earlier gifts, acting, allegedly, on the president's
behalf to conceal those gifts in the Jones case. He says -- he told
this committee with a straight face, "the only logical inference is
that the gifts, including the bear symbolizing strength, were a tacit
reminder to Ms. Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship even in
the face of a federal subpoena."

Is he kidding? For nonsense like this we're going to overturn
the votes of the American people? The bear symbolizing strength was a
tacit reminder to Ms. Lewinsky -- and a secret code, I suppose -- to
continue to deny the relationship? I don't think so. I think the
bear was a warning by the president that the stock market was going to
tank and she should put her money in bonds. (Laughter.) It's as
logical an inference. It has as much evidence behind it. The fact
is, this is a nonsense article.

And finally, the fact that the president spoke to co-workers in
his office, to people he works with every day, and told them the same
cover story that he was presumably telling his wife and others to
protect his family because he was ashamed of this relationship. What
is that evidence of? A conspiracy against justice? No, it's evidence
of the fact that he's having a cover story for a sexual affair he
wasn't proud of and didn't want to go public. And that becomes an
impeachable offense? This is ludicrous -- along with the rest of this
article, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just me say that I think a compelling case, Mr. Nadler, is
made for a scheme here, and it doesn't make sense to pick out details
and mock them when we have a deep responsibility.

But I did take Mr. Delahunt's question to heart and looked up the
information there, and to some degree he's right. I would just like
to point out that I don't think it has -- his argument has the weight
that he would suggest.

On page 1396 of the documents, it does indicate in a 302, one of
the FBI reports, which was done on July 27th, 1998, that on December
28th -- the document which was done on the 27th of July -- Monica
Lewinsky says that on December 28th -- so, roughly seven months
earlier -- she had had a phone call and then met, or was outside her
apartment on 20th Street to give those -- the gifts to Ms. Currie at
about 2:00 p.m. That's a fair statement. But it does say "about."
On the other hand, you have a call at 3:32 which is fixed in the
records of her cell phone. I suspect that there may have been a
mistake by Ms. Lewinsky of an hour and a half there and that that is
not substantial.

I'd like to talk briefly about the fact that Mr. Clinton --
President Clinton allowed his attorney to make false statements and
misleading statements to a federal judge as he characterized an
affidavit in order to prevent questioning which during the course of
the questioning the judge deemed was relevant.

On January 15th, Robert Bennett, who is the attorney for
President Clinton, obtained a copy of the affidavit that Monica
Lewinsky had filed to avoid testifying herself in the Jones case, and
then -- in this affidavit you'll recall that Lewinsky asserted that
she had never had a sexual relationship with the president. At the
president's deposition two days later, on July 17th, 1998, an attorney
for Paula Jones began to ask the president questions about his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Now we saw this on the video
recently. Mr. Bennett objected to the innuendo of the questions and
he pointed out that she had signed an affidavit denying a sexual
relationship with the president. Mr. Bennett asserted that this
indicated there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.
Now, we all heard that being stated as the president sat there and
nodded a couple of times in assent.

After a warning from Judge Wright he stated that, "Look, I'm not
coaching the witness. In the preparation of the witness for this
deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Jane Dow Six's
affidavit. So I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know."
Mr. Bennett clearly used the affidavit in an attempt to stop the
questioning of the president about Ms. Lewinsky. The president did
not say anything to correct Mr. Bennett, even though he knew the
affidavit was false. Judge Wright overruled Mr. Bennett's objection
and allowed the questioning to proceed.

Later in the deposition, Mr. Bennett read the president the
portion of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit in which she denied having,
quotation marks, "a sexual relationship" with the president and asked
the president if Ms. Lewinsky's statement was true and accurate. The
president responded, "That is absolutely true."

The grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky given under oath,
following a grant a transactional immunity, confirmed that the
contents of her affidavit were not true. Of the affidavit, she says
under questioning, "I've never had a sexual relationship with the
president" is that true? And her answer is no, it was not true.

When President Clinton was asked during his grand jury testimony
how he could -- now we're backing off from the Lewinsky testimony now
and the deposition to the grand jury -- how he could have lawfully sat
silent at the deposition while his attorney made a false statement --
"There is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form" -- the
District Court -- the president first said he was not paying a great
deal of attention to Mr. Bennett when he said this. The president
also said, "I didn't pay any attention to this colloquy that went on."
Of course we saw the president sort of nodding at that as the colloquy
happened. The videotape deposition shows the president looking in Mr.
Bennett's direction while Mr. Bennett was making the statement about
"no sex of any kind."

The president then argued that when Mr. Bennett made the
assertion that there "is no sex of any kind" Mr. Bennett was speaking
only in the present tense. And therefore we get the famous "Is is
what?" question. The president said, "It depends on what the meaning
of `is' is; that if it means there is none, that was a completely true
statement." President Clinton's suggestion that he might have engaged
in such a parsing of the words at his deposition is at odds with his
assertion that the whole argument had just passed him by.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired.

REP. CANNON: Thank you.

REP. BRYANT: Mr. Chairman? I ask unanimous consent for two
minutes to be yielded to Mr. Cannon.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, of course.

REP. BRYANT: Mr. Cannon, are you aware that the president's
attorney, Bob Bennett, has, since this time, sent a request or a
letter to the court formally withdrawing that affidavit?

REP. CANNON: I am aware of that, and I think that is a
remarkable fact, yes.

REP. BRYANT: Okay. Well, my question is, he did that, I
understand, as an officer of the court. Do you understand the
significance of that action and how that impacts the president?

REP. CANNON: I believe actually that I do understand the
significance of that action. But you were a federal prosecutor, and
it might be nice if you stated that, what you think that is.

REP. BRYANT: Well we've got several on this panel. But
certainly my understanding of these facts were that the -- Mr.
Bennett, the lawyer for the president, as any attorney would in any
litigation, once they find out that they have been -- that there has
been improper or false evidence submitted to the court, as an officer
of the court they have a duty to notify the judge of that and to take
proper steps to disassociate themselves from their client or withdraw
that evidence from the court. And I just wanted to point that out to
you.

And I don't know if my former colleague --

REP. DELAHUNT: Would my friend yield?

REP. BRYANT: I'd be happy to. Another great prosecutor over
there, Mr. Delahunt.

REP. DELAHUNT: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.

And, you know, Mr. Cannon alluded to the fact that you are a
United States attorney and suggested that you respond to one of his
questions. And I see my friend from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, here
also.

And as former U.S. attorneys, both of you, and for whom I truly have
great respect for both of you, let me pose a question. Take Bill
Clinton out of the deposition, put -- substitute ordinary citizen.
Would either one of you have brought a perjury case when you were the
United States attorney? And the context that I pose this is that we
had five United States attorneys here, testifying that in both the
grand jury as well as the deposition --

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has again expired.

REP. COBLE: Mr. Chairman?

REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from
North Carolina rise?

REP. COBLE: Unanimous consent to speak out of turn for one
minute.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.

REP. COBLE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be -- appear to be the
grinch who stole Christmas, but I want to tell my Democrat and
Republican friends alike, I think five minutes are sufficient, and if
it doesn't annoy anybody too severely, I intend to object at the end
of each five minute segment so we can go home and go to bed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired. For what
purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, seek
recognition?

REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes
exactly.

REP. WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to proceed very carefully in what I say here because I
think of all the articles in this document this is the one that is
most troubling to me, and when I hear Mr. Cannon refer to a scheme, it
troubles me even further because I really think there are some things
in this article that come dangerously close to just -- to McCarthyism.

We went through a period in our history when behind every tree
there was a communist. You know, if you made a phone call to somebody
who was a communist, you became a communist. We assumed the absolute
worst.

And that's what I see happening in some parts of this article.
And when you do that, you start to presume things that just -- I mean,
they're like bad people behind every tree, and bad motivations for
every phone call, and bad motivations for every contact, even when the
contacts are completely innocent.

Now, I just want to specifically look at parts 6 and 7 on page 7
of the articles where, when the president is having a conversation
with Ms. Currie, you say that -- I presume you're talking about Ms.
Currie -- "on or about January 18, January 20, 21, William Jefferson
Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a
federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness
in that proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of
that witness."

Now we know that in the Paula Jones case when the president had a
conversation with Ms. Currie, that conversation with Ms. Currie,
discovery -- the discovery period was almost over. It was within a
few days of being over, and Ms. Currie's name had never appeared on an
witness list, so this notion that she is somehow a potential witness
-- I don't know where it comes from. And then you go back later and
you do the same.

Now let me show you where this leads finally in Mr. Schippers'
presentation yesterday, and show you how sinister it becomes. Mr.
Schippers then says, "when he called Ms. Currie, he made sure that
this was a face-to-face meeting, not an impersonal telephone call. He
made sure that no one else was present when he spoke to her. He made
sure that he had the meeting in his office, an area where he was
comfortable and could utilize his power and prestige to influence
future testimony. Once these controls were established, the president
made short, clear, understandable declarative statements telling Ms.
Currie what his testimony was."

Now, that's fine if that's what happened, but look at what the
actual statements were that the president made.

There, one page before Mr. Schippers has given us this declarative
statement, he's told us what the statements were. Number one, "It was
never really -- I was never really alone with Monica, right?" question
mark. Is that a declarative statement?

Two: "You were always there when Monica was there, right?"
question mark. Is that a declarative statement?

REP. FRANK: I think that chairman made the right call. I think
that chairman made the right call.

REP. CANADY: Mr. Chairman.

REP. FRANK: Go ahead, Jim, you're right.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Okay, the gentleman from Florida is
recognized for five minutes.

REP. CANADY: Would you start -- may I have the full five
minutes?

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Yes.

REP. FRANK: It's okay with us. Check with Coble. (Laughter.)

REP. CANADY: I wanted to follow up on the issues raised by the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, about the paragraph six in
this article concerning the conversations that the president had with
Ms. Currie on January 18th and January 20th and 21. The record
reflects that President Clinton attempted to influence the testimony
of Betty Currie, his personal secretary, by coaching her to recite
inaccurate answers to possible questions that might be asked of her if
called to testify in the case of Jones versus Clinton. That president
did this shortly after he had been deposed in that case, as we all
know.

In his deposition, when asked about whether it would be extraordinary
for Betty Currie to be in the White House between midnight and 6 a.m.,
the president answered in part, "Those are questions you'd have to ask
her." Furthermore, the president invokes Betty Currie's name numerous
times throughout the deposition, oftentimes asserting that Monica was
around to see Betty, and that Betty talked about Vernon Jordan helping
Ms. Lewinsky, and Betty talked with Ms. Lewinsky about her move to New
York. After mentioning Betty Currie so often in answers to questions
during his deposition, it was very logical for the president to assume
the Jones lawyers might call her as a witness. That's not a leap;
that's right there. That's for all of us to see in the president's
own words. This is why the president called her about two hours after
the completion of his deposition and asked her to come to the office
the next day, which was a Sunday.

Now, the president has stated that on January 18th, 1998, he met
with Ms. Currie and asked her certain questions in an effort "to get
as much information as quickly as I could, and made certain
statements, although I do not remember exactly what I said." That's
what the president contends. The president added that he urged Ms.
Currie to tell the truth after learning that the Office of Independent
Counsel might subpoena her to testify. The president also stated that
he could not recall how many times he had talked to Ms. Currie or
when.

But let me go on and tell you what Ms. Currie said, and you've
gone through it, but I think it bears repeating. While testifying
before the grand jury, Ms. Currie said this when an OIC attorney asked
her if the president had made a series of leading statements or
questions that were similar to the following: "You were always there
when she was there; right? We were never really alone. You could
see, hear, and hear everything. Monica came on to me, and I never
touched her; right? She wanted to have sex with me, and I couldn't do
that."

Now, in her testimony Ms. Currie indicated that the president's
remarks were, quote, "more like statements than questions." Now,
that's her characterization of it. Based on his demeanor and the
manner in which he asked the questions, she concluded that the
president wanted her to agree with him. Ms. Currie thought that the
president was attempting to gauge her reaction and appeared concerned.
Ms. Currie also acknowledged that while she indicated to the president
that she agreed with him, in fact she knew that at times he was alone
with Ms. Lewinsky and that she could not or did not hear or see the
two of them while they were alone.

At their subsequent meeting, on January 20 and 21, after the
first time he talked with her about this, Ms. Currie stated that it
was sort of a recapitulation of what we had talked about on Sunday.

Now the president's response, that he was trying to ascertain what the
facts were or trying to ascertain what Betty's perception was, is
simply not credible. The president knew the facts about what had
happened with Ms. Lewinsky. Betty Currie was not his source of
information about the details of that relationship. That's ridiculous
on its face.

The only reason he had to pose that series of so-called
questions, or statements, to her was to corruptly influence her
testimony. And I think that is clear on the face of the record, and
any contrary interpretation suggests a willful disregard of all the
circumstances.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired.

For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek
recognition?

REP. FRANK: To strike the last word.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, this is a very shoddy effort, it seems
to me. And actually I agree again that the central fact of this case
remains central to this; Bill Clinton had a consensual sexual affair
with Monica Lewinsky and sought to conceal that fact. That is the
only fact that we have at the center of all this; that is, that's the
cause. We again remember that all of the other issues that have been
raised, from the FBI files to Whitewater to Kathleen Willey, et
cetera, et cetera, are simply absent from this.

So then the question is, did the president obstruct justice? And
there are a number of, I think, very strained efforts to prove that.

One central fact has been missing. Monica Lewinsky is treated
here as if she was just bursting to get to that deposition and tell
all. And the whole premise of this is, is that Monica Lewinsky was
being preyed upon, suborned, persuaded by this combination of Vernon
Jordan, Betty Currie, Bill Clinton, et al, not to tell the truth. It
is in this context that it is very relevant that Monica Lewinsky
volunteered -- because the prosecutors knew enough from that cases's
standpoint not to ask her -- she volunteered, "No one asked me to lie,
and no one promised me a job."

Now I have noticed that my colleagues on the other side have
developed a very peculiar verbal tic. Monica Lewinsky said, "No one
asked me to lie." They are incapable of repeating that without adding
the word "explicitly." It's a form of verbal disease. Monica
Lewinsky said, "No one asked me to lie." They all say, including
Kenneth Starr, "No one explicitly asked me to lie."

There is an enormous difference between the two. And the very
fact that my colleagues on the other side almost always add that word
"explicitly" indicates their recognition of the power of her denial.

It's also interesting that Monica Lewinsky is a woman of absolute
perfect memory in Ken Starr's version, except she just had a terrible
memory lapse and she lost a couple of hours of her life, because the
gentleman from Utah, explaining the very important point made by my
colleague from Massachusetts, said, "Oh well, she must have thought it
was 2:00, but it was really 4:00 because the call came at 3:30."

There was nothing remotely to suggest that.

Betty Currie, interestingly, also goes through
transmogrifications. We are told that she was willing to give
testimony to the grand jury that the majority finds damaging. But she
also said -- Betty Currie said Monica Lewinsky initiated the gift
transfer.

So we have your acknowledgement that Betty Currie was prepared to
tell the truth, even if it was somewhat damaging to Bill Clinton.
You're citing one of her statements that's very damaging to Bill
Clinton. Why does she then become a liar and a schemer when she
volunteers it?

The fact is that the most sensible explanation here is that both
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky wanted to withhold the truth of this.
Neither one of them wanted to do it. Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton
worked together. The gentleman from Florida said they had agreed long
before the Paula Jones -- months before the Paula Jones thing was on
anybody's horizon for Monica Lewinsky, that they would not tell the
truth.

But you have to change the facts; you have to assume that there
was this Monica Lewinsky dying to tell everybody. As a matter of
fact, let's be very clear, even after all of this, what got Monica
Lewinsky to talk was Kenneth Starr threatening to throw her and her
mother in prison. Monica Lewinsky had to be threatened by Kenneth
Starr with imprisonment and have her mother be threatened by Kenneth
Starr with imprisonment before she would say it. Now that's relevant
because you're portraying this notion that it took all of Bill
Clinton's wiles, and Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie, to keep her from
doing this. The truth is, she never wanted to do it. The truth is,
she was resisting vigorously doing it on her own. The truth is that
this young woman only told these facts when she was threatened with
prison, and that destroys the whole case.

You are accusing Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie
of doing something all of them have denied -- and they have all denied
that they did this -- and you're saying that they did it to persuade
and cajole Monica Lewinsky to doing something which she in fact did --
that she wanted to do. She did not have to be restrained from
testifying; she didn't want to testify. Quite the contrary, is the
case; she had to be -- first Linda Tripp tried to get her to do it,
and then Kenneth Starr threatened her with it.

And I think this failure to recognize Monica Lewinsky's
reluctance to testify is a central problem, and that's why you have so
much trouble explaining away her statement that no one asked her to
lie and no one promised her a job.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired.

For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas,
seek recognition?

REP. GEKAS: To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes
-- five.

REP. GEKAS: We will all recall that the president gave that
deposition on January 17th, 1998. On or about January 21st, in
conformity -- now I'm speaking with number seven of the Article of
Impeachment number three. In the days following the 21st, et cetera,
he started talking with his aides because, by that time, the
Washington Post had broken the story and everybody in the country was
talking about it.

And so his aides -- one by one the president's aides would be talking
to him about it. In one of those instances, Mr. Blumenthal, one of
his aides, asked him, "Have you done anything wrong?" There are a lot
of details to it, but this is basic -- "Have you done anything wrong?"
He said, "No, I've done nothing wrong," and words to the effect that
he did not have a relationship with this intern, as the Washington
Post had indicated.

Now, at that time, it was also revealed by the Washington Post
that Judge Starr was looking into this matter, so when Blumenthal
asked this, the president knew that Starr was pursuing this matter.
When he told Blumenthal that he did nothing wrong and that there was
no relationship between him and Monica Lewinsky, he had an inkling
that -- and a notion, a knowledge that Ken Starr was after this case.

Back up for a moment -- if he had told Blumenthal the truth,
that, yes, Mr. Blumenthal, I did have a relationship, I have done
something wrong, I did have this relationship with Monica Lewinsky,
Blumenthal, upon being subpoenaed by the grand jury, would have to
testify on an admission against interest on the part of the president
and say the president did admit to me that he had this relationship.

So the president, in telling Blumenthal and Podesta and X and Y
and Z among the aides who he knew were going to be testifying after
Judge Starr began to pursue witnesses had to block out the item that
he was trying to protect. He was trying to protect himself, and
Monica Lewinsky, and his family and everybody else from the break of
the news that he had this relationship with Monica Lewinsky. So he
told one after the other, knowing that they were in a position to be
subpoenaed by the grand jury, that he did nothing wrong, he had no
such relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This is obstruction of
justice.

Now how did -- how did the president know is a question that
might be looming. How did the president know -- how do we know that
the president knew that they were going to be witnesses in the grand
jury. The president said so. In the grand jury testimony that he,
himself presented, the question was, "It may have been misleading,
sir, and you knew, though, after January 21st, when the Post article
broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew that
they might be witnesses" -- meaning Podesta, Blumenthal, X, Y and Z,
the aides in the White House -- "you knew that they might be called
into a grand jury, didn't you?"

Answer: "That's right. I think I was quite careful what I said
after that. I may have said something to all these people to that
effect, but" -- I'm reading the whole thing to be fair, so that I
wouldn't be taking it out of context -- "but I also, whenever anybody
asked me any details, I said, `Look, I don't want you to be a witness
or I turn you into a witness or give you information that could get
you into trouble.' I just wouldn't talk. I, by and large, didn't
talk to people about this."

And so that forms the gravamen of this particular averment in the
third article of impeachment. It is palpably an attempt by the
president to protect himself, but in doing so, he gives evidence from
which a trier of fact can easily deduce that he obstructed justice.

I yield back the balance of my time.

For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Lofgren, seek recognition?

REP. LOFGREN: The last word.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentlewoman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): First, I would like to comment once
again that it's now 10 to 8:00, I guess, almost 10 to 8:00, we are
concluding, or getting close to concluding, our third article, and we
have still not heard from Mr. Starr in response to the questions,
despite the chairman and ranking member's letters and the repeated
phone calls from staff among both Republican and Democratic staff to
ask for the answers.

I would like unanimous consent to submit to the record the form
that I sent to Mr. Starr on December 4th asking him these three
questions and asking that he merely fill in the blanks and circle
"yes" or "no" as an answer. And I'm hopeful that by continuing to
raise this issue, we might actually get the answers that we are owed
before we are finished.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, the gentlewoman's letter
will be placed as a part of the record. She may proceed.

REP. LOFGREN: Secondarily, I think it's clear that the
allegations in this article are so far from what would be required to
prove that the conduct was destructive to our American constitutional
system of government that I really think it's preposterous. My
colleagues have handled this quite well. I don't need to go at very
great length. So I would therefore like to yield the remainder of my
time to my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.

REP. BILL DELAHUNT (D-MA): I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I understand -- I wasn't in the committee room at the time, but I
understand that Mr. Cannon acknowledged that Ms. Lewinsky might be
wrong about the time. And I appreciate that acknowledgement. But I
really wonder when we should stop assuming that she was making
mistakes, and I think we have that responsibility.

It's a very dangerous assumption. But anyhow -- or that she was
correct.

REP. CANNON: Would the gentleman yield on that point? I don't
think I acknowledged she made a mistake. I don't know. But a two-
hour mistake after seven months is not --

REP. DELAHUNT: Well, I don't have a lot of time. But, you know,
again, you know, Mr. Frank talked about shoddiness. And while we're
on the subject of that phone call, I just want to make another point
that speaks to the quality of the evidence. And I dare say it speaks
to all of the evidence contained within the Starr referral, because no
member of this committee, including myself, have had the opportunity
to review it. And we know that and the American people should know
that. It was simply an impossible task.

You know, both the referral from Mr. Starr and Mr. Schippers
state that Ms. Currie initiated the call when she was visiting her
mother in the hospital. Now, if Mr. Starr had bothered to investigate
-- again, another point; I'd call it a rather key point -- or if Mr.
Schippers had done the work an impeachment should really be about,
they would have found that Ms. Currie was at the Howard University
Hospital here in DC.

Now, go back to this key corroborating evidence, the cell phone
bill that we keep talking about, putting aside why Betty Currie would
use her cell phone bill to call Ms. Lewinsky to begin this obstruction
of justice. Let's put that aside. But just notice, notice that the
phone bill says the call was from Arlington, Virginia, not from
Washington, not from the District.

You know, when should we believe Mr. Starr? It's interesting to
note that in the grand jury, Ms. Lewinsky stated rather clearly that
the Office of Independent Counsel asked her if she would agree to be
wired to get Vernon Jordan or Betty Currie and possibly the president
--

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The time of the gentlewoman from California
has expired.

REP. GEKAS: Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: State your point.

REP. GEKAS: Do we have to refer to Mr. Coble to gain extra time
for our members?

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Coble told us that he was more of the
official time keeper than this contraption.

REP. COBLE: Mr. Chairman, I think I have ruffled feathers. I
didn't mean to. We're in the shadow of the yuletide season. I will
withdraw my complaint and I'll try to give some time, and I'll give it
to Mr. Watt before the midnight hour. (Laughter.)

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, the feathers are
unruffled.

REP. COBLE: I'm not sure about that, Mr. Chairman, but I'll try.

REP. DELAHUNT: Can I have an additional minute?

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Without objection, so ordered.

REP. DELAHUNT: I thank --

REP. SENSENBRENNER: It's the time of the gentlewoman from
California. Does she -- she has to ask for it.

REP. DELAHUNT (?): Mr. Chairman, can I ask for an additional
minute for the gentlewoman from California?

REP. SENSENBRENNER: I guess so, without objection.

REP. DELAHUNT (?): She yielded. (Laughter.)

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Well, even though proxy voting has been
abolished for four years, I guess the gentleman from Massachusetts is
now recognized on his own for a minute.

REP. DELAHUNT: Well, I thank the creativity of the chair. But I
just simply want to make the point that during her grand jury
testimony, Monica Lewinsky unequivocally stated that during the
encounter at the hotel, the Ritz, she was asked by the Office of
Independent Counsel whether she would consider to be wired. And yet
Mr. Starr, under oath, when he testified here before us, in reference
to a letter that I had produced to him that he had sent to Mr. Brill
where he said that the suggestion that he had in any way requested Ms.
Lewinsky to be wired was totally false -- was totally false.

I mean, this is -- we are on the verge of voting another article
based on pick-and-choose and pick-and-choose and just shoddiness
everywhere. I sincerely ask my friends on the other side just to
think about these things, please.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired. And
before recognizing the next speaker, let me announce that I have been
informed by staff that the Office of Independent Counsel has prepared
the responses to the questions that were jointly asked by Chairman
Hyde and Ranking Minority Member Conyers. And, using their words,
they are "literally out the door" with these responses and should be
here within the next half hour. And I hope that that satisfactorily
answers the questions that have been posed, at least about the timing
of this.

For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte,
seek recognition?

REP. GOODLATTE: I move to strike the last word.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. GOODLATTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I intend
to vote for this article of impeachment. I have listened to the
debate. I've studied the evidence very carefully, and I think that
the evidence very strongly supports the allegations of an effort to
obstruct justice by the president of the United States.

I would like to address my attention to motives. The gentleman
from Massachusetts focused on the motivation of Ms. Lewinsky, and I
think that's important and I'd like to address that. But I think the
motivation of the president in this case, particularly when we come to
the issue of whether or not this is an impeachable offense, is
particularly important, because many on the other side have suggested
that even if all of these events described in this article took place,
it's still not an impeachable offense because it's simply the
president's efforts to cover up an embarrassing situation. And I
don't believe that to be the case, but I'll get to that in a moment.

I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is right that Ms.
Lewinsky was motivated not to testify. But I also think there are a
lot of different ways that she might result in not testifying, and one
of those was the very affidavit that is the subject of this article.
And it's an issue of control. The president of the United States did
not want Ms. Lewinsky to testify, because if she went before the civil
deposition and testified, she would be expected to tell the truth
under penalty of perjury, the very issue in this case, and so the
issue of this affidavit.

The president knows that an affidavit is being prepared. He
knows that if it's being prepared truthfully that she's definitely
going to be called to testify in that case because she would then be a
material witness because, as a subordinate employee of the president,
her evidence of her relationship with the president is very much
related to the question of whether or not Ms. Jones is telling the
truth in her case.

It all boils down to how you prove a sexual harassment lawsuit.
And everyone here should know that it's very difficult to prove a
sexual harassment lawsuit. You do it by showing patterns of behavior.
Very often the only two witnesses to the case are the two people
involved. In this case, Ms. Jones and the president are the only
people in the room during the incident that is alleged, so what can
you show to corroborate Ms. Jones' testimony? Well, Ms. Lewinsky can
corroborate that. So it's very important that that affidavit be
false. And so, yes, there is a motivation on the part of Ms. Lewinsky
not to testify, but how she goes about not testifying is of grave
concern to the president, and I think that's substantiated.

But the greater concern that I have is what's the motivation of
the president. I reject the argument that this is simply to avoid
embarrassment, because in the very same deposition the president gave
testimony in which I believe he gave substantial amounts of false
testimony. He acknowledged his relationship with Gennifer Flowers.
He acknowledged embarrassing circumstances. And as a result, it's my
opinion that the president engaged in the activity both in that
deposition and in all of these activities surrounding it with regard
to the affidavit, with regard to the gifts, with regard to Ms.
Currie's testimony and so on, all of that was designed to defeat that
sexual harassment lawsuit. That's the purpose of the president's
activities here. It is not to avoid embarrassment. It is to defeat a
lawsuit.

When we had Professor Dershowitz come before us and testify, he
attempted to define several levels of perjury, some of which he
acknowledged would be impeachable and some not, and he attempted to
make this perjury the lowest level of perjury and therefore not
impeachable. But I pointed out to him that if these facts are indeed
the case, if this is a part of an effort to defeat this lawsuit, that
is not dissimilar to the police officers that he complained about
giving false testimony in criminal cases in the effort to win those
lawsuits.

So his efforts to defeat this lawsuit or win it, from his
standpoint, in my opinion, is a very serious form of perjury. It is
not based upon simply covering up his personal activities but rather
to subvert the judicial process, to harm a right that people in this
country have to bring, and that is sexual harassment lawsuits when
they are treated in a certain fashion. And we should not treat the
president's behavior lightly because it was, in my opinion, founded
upon an effort far, far removed from simply covering up a personal
embarrassment.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired. I'm going
down the line in order on the Democratic side. Do either the
gentlewoman from Texas or the gentlewoman from California seek
recognition? The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. JACKSON LEE: I'd like to strike the last word. We are
dangerously tilting over the edge. And for many of us, this exercise
has not been taken lightly. And frankly, again, a word that I intend
to use, because I hope it signifies some seriousness in this effort --
I'm just not sure where we're going. We are at the point of these
articles of impeachment, and for those who are studying this process
and have seen us work through yesterday and today, the articles have
several paragraphs. And so they make up the article as an entirety.

And this one that is article number three is called or at least
suggests obstruction of justice. Well, I believe we shouldn't even be
here, if you will, because these are private matters, albeit
reprehensible. And if we would tend to the constitutional mandate and
the framers' mindset or the Federalist Papers or the words of James
Madison, we would understand that treason, bribery and other high
crimes and misdemeanors was intended to deal with the acts of a
president that impacted the governmental system, that subverted the
Constitution, that toppled the government, that destroyed the trust in
government of the chief executive officer of the United States of
America.

We are here quarreling over these private matters and discussing
phone call distinctions, albeit relevant, since our colleagues are
relying upon this. But unfortunately, we cannot rely on witnesses
called by the majority to have been able to assess their credibility,
to have been able to ask Ms. Currie, to have been able to ask Ms.
Lewinsky of a discrepancy.

So it troubles me and somewhat provides an unfortunate degree of
humor when I hear my colleagues citing the record when it is nothing
but the unchallenged record of testimony where we have not had the
ability to give and take, to examine and cross-examine.

In the Madison papers, written quite well by James Madison, who
was a good note-taker of the proceedings to write the Constitution, it
is made very clear that they had intended or had the language dealing
with how they perceived high crimes and misdemeanors, treason and
bribery, against the state. And it was only when the stylistic
committee, meaning the grammar committee, the committee that makes it
look pretty, decided to take out "against the state" so that they
would be able to not have redundancy.

So we're actually talking about private matters of the president
of the United States, and the impeachment provision doesn't even
provide for that. But that's another story, I guess.

I want to focus on number seven, because it really -- seven of
the Article Number Four -- talks about the president using his
Cabinet, and attempting -- and his chief deputies -- to cover up and
to obstruct justice.

First of all, as this was unveiling, the president was telling
more or less the same story to everyone: this was embarrassing,
didn't want to have this come out, anyone to know anything
differently. I don't know how we can attribute to him the fact that
he knew that all of this was going to explode at the time he was still
dealing with Whitewater, and Travelgate, and Filegate. And then all
of a sudden, this came about.

But let me simply say in the Starr Report, you have "the most
senior officials in the Executive Branch served as an additional
albeit unwitting agents of the president's deception. The Cabinet and
White House stated emphatically that the allegations were false." And
they're basing that upon what Mr. Clinton said to them.

Now, none of them got on a telephone, or got into a meeting and
organized themselves, and said "You go here," "you go here," "make
sure when you go into the grand jury, which they did not know,
including Mr. Lindsey and Lieberman and all the others, "you say
this."

And then the ultimate foolishness, foolhardiness of this, is in
Mr. Starr's referral, he talks about the First Lady. We all are
familiar with the very forceful statements she made on one of the
morning talk shows sometime in January. He wants to call that
obstruction of justice.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentlelady's time has expired.

REP. JACKSON LEE: The president is not being treated fairly.
These are not impeachable offenses, Mr. Chairman. These are not
offenses against the state, and this article should fail, because it
is groundless.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: For what purpose does the gentleman from
Ohio Mr. Chabot seek recognition?

REP. CHABOT: To strike the last word.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.

REP. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we come to a close on
this unfortunately but very necessary debate, let me address the third
article of impeachment obstruction of justice. As I discussed last
night, the charges arrayed against the president are individually very
troubling, but together, they're overwhelming. This article, I
believe, demonstrates the web and deceit and cover- up that the
president constructed to hide his lies in the Jones civil rights
lawsuit.

This third article of impeachment charges the president of the
United States with, one, encouraging a witness to file a false
affidavit; two, encouraging a witness to give false testimony; three,
encouraging a witness to conceal evidence; four, assisting a witness
to get a job in order to make sure that she didn't tell the truth in
her testimony; five, allowing his attorney to make false statements
and thus cut off a specific and very important line of questioning in
the Jones case. Six, attempting to influence Betty Currie to lie, and
seven, making false and misleading statements to his staff and to his
Cabinet, with the intent that they would repeat those lies before a
federal grand jury, and also would repeat those lies to the American
people.

The purpose of all this lying and deceit wasn't just to keep the
president from being embarrassed. He'd been embarrassed before. It
was to defeat a civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit. That was the
purpose. This isn't just about sex, as many people have said, and
would like it to be about. It's not. It's the lies, it's the
obstruction of justice, it's covering up. It's that lawsuit, which
was the basis for all of this.

These serious seven obstruction charges, are extremely troubling.
We are not talking about little white lies, or half- truths. Instead,
we're talking about the president of the United States engaging in
cover-up, witness-tampering, and a well-planned effort to thwart our
system of justice.

These are criminal acts that cannot be ignored. And let's always
keep in mind, that as the president was concealing the evidence, and
the other things that he was doing in this case, he was consciously
and deliberately breaking the law. At that time, he was the chief law
enforcement officer of this country, and that's completely
unacceptable. And that's why we're here this evening.

And at this time, I would like to yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

REP. BARR: I thank the gentleman from Ohio. Much has been made
by various of the other speakers on the other side of the aisle in
their defense -- continuing defense of the president -- and indeed,
they remind me dramatically of defenses and arguments that I would
hear as the United States Attorney, raising arguments against
indictments, against proof in criminal cases.

I would point out to particularly my colleagues on this side of
the aisle, that as they are well aware, the obstruction of justice, as
the gentleman from Ohio stated, is an extremely serious portion of the
U.S. Criminal Code, reflected in very serious penalties applicable
thereto in the federal sentencing guidelines.

There is indeed an entire chapter of Title 18 of the United
States Code, which is the Criminal Code, relating to obstruction. The
reason why there are so many different provisions of the Federal
Criminal Code that relate to obstruction, as opposed, for example, to
the perjury provisions of the code, which are found entirely in one
particular section, is because of the very subtle nature and very
subtle practice that obstruction usually takes, very infrequently
involving sophisticated and intelligent defendants.

And one may accuse or feel a lot of things about the president of
the United States, but I don't think anybody could claim that he is
neither sophisticated nor intelligent. In those type situations,
involving application of the obstruction statutes, what almost
invariably prosecutors are faced with, are defendants who do not tell
the person to whom they are seeking to obstruct justice, or as to whom
they are, "I want you to lie. I am tampering with you. Do you
understand that? I am asking you and directing that you hide this
evidence. Do you understand that?"

It is much less direct than that, much more sophisticated, and
the case that we've heard today reflected in the general but with
sufficient specificity provisions of Article III of these articles of
impeachment, are more than sufficient to satisfy the burden of your
United States attorneys and many state prosecutors, for those states
which --

Might I have one more minute, Mr. Chairman, by unanimous consent?

REP. HYDE: Yes.

REP. BARR: -- for those states which have statutes similar to
the federal obstruction statutes. Frequently, more frequently than
not, prosecutors present and have convictions sustained on less
evidence than we have addressed here today, much less evidence than
the independent counsel has already presented to this committee, and
which will be transmitted along with whatever articles of impeachment
may be voted out by the House to the Senate.

And as members on our side have indicated, these involve the
tampering with witnesses, tampering of evidence, efforts to have other
people go forth, sally forth in the world, and relate to other people,
in this case literally millions of other people your side of the
story, which is not in accord with reality or the facts of the case.

That is the essence of tampering, that is the essence of
obstruction. And I feel very comfortable, Mr. Chairman, in
recommending the members on this committee vote in favor of Article
III in all of its component parts, which more than satisfies both the
legal and historical burden of an obstruction article of impeachment.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady
from California, Ms. Waters.

REP. WATERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members, at
one point during the day, I thought I would not engage in this any
more, because I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have made up their minds, and you certainly can't change their minds.
They know what they have to do, they know what they must do. There is
not a lot of independence over there, and they're going to vote lock-
step together, and that's that.

But I want to really talk about some of this to the American
public that may be listening. This hodge-podge of referral
information that's general in nature, not specific, and does not cite
anywhere exactly what Bill Clinton said or did to support the
allegation in the referral is just absolutely amazing.

But let me talk a little bit about the job-assistance part of it, and
that's on page six, where they say:

"Beginning on or about December 7th, 1997, and continuing through
and including January 14th, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton
intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a
witness in a federal civil-rights action brought against him in order
to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that
proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would
have been harmful to him."

There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- in any of the
information that we have received -- none of the documents -- that
supports this allegation.

As a matter of fact, if you listen to the telephone conversations
between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, you will see Linda Tripp
carefully guiding her to get to Vernon Jordan. She suggests to her
that Vernon Jordan could really get her a job, that what she needed to
do was to find a way to get to Vernon Jordan because he was a powerful
man with a lot of friends. And she literally put a string through her
nose and just led her right through, to her going back to Betty
Currie, asking if they could get some help from Vernon Jordan.

The president did not ask Vernon Jordan. Nowhere in the document
do you see the president in a conversation with her, saying that he
will give her job assistance if she will not testify. Nowhere do you
see him asking anybody to do anything. But what you see is a very
aggressive young woman who knows what she wants. And she has learned
a lot about how to stay in people's faces, how to get what she wants,
how to ask for it, how to get to the next person higher up.

And she does it quite well. She bugs everybody. She ensnares a
lot of people into this circle of trying to get her a job. And she
keeps pestering and sending notes.

And we know about this because we have interns in our office.
Some are very aggressive, and they let you know what they want right
away: "Ms. Waters, can you introduce me to" -- "can you get me in a
party with the president?"; "Can you get me on a campaign?"; "I want
to be the press person."

Oh, some of them really go after it. And when they come here,
they do their work oftentimes. But they are at the parties, and they
find out where the big things are happening. They want to rub
shoulders.

And that's what she was all about, and that's how she did it.
There is nothing in this information that shows that the president and
Vernon Jordan "dropped everything they were doing," as Mr. Barr said.

Now that's really putting a spin on it -- to say the president of the
United States and Vernon Jordan dropped everything that they were
doing in order to get Monica Lewinsky a job. And let me tell you
something. He referred to her as second or third rate. Well, we have
interns that come into our office, and they may come in making no
money or very little money, or they may just be volunteer, but they're
not second- or third-rate people! Even if they come in at entry-level
rates, they just happen to be people breaking in the door, getting a
job for the first time. They're not second or third rate! We have
some first-rate people in low-paying jobs, and to identify her, a
college graduate who is bright, who is computer literate, who keeps
the damnedest records I've ever seen -- this women docufied (sic) --
documents everything! She's not a second- or third-rate person, she's
very bright, she knows how to go after a job and to get people doing
what she wants them to do.

This is a bunch of baloney, but I could argue this case in court
and win. I could win because they have no documentation, they have
nothing but the spinning of someone like Mr. Barr, and that's
dangerous! And why am I so fixed on this? I request unanimous
consent for two more minutes --

REP. HYDE: The gentlelady wants two more minutes. She --

REP. WATERS: Let me tell you why I'm so fixed on this. I'm
fixed on this because I think Mr. Ken Starr is the poster boy for all
of the bad prosecutors in America. What does that mean? That means
you have prosecutors who abuse people, who use their powers to make
people plea bargain because they don't know their rights. They
perjure. I don't care whether you are from the right wing or the left
wing or in the center. I am with you in fighting against bad
prosecutors. I was sympathetic to the people up at Ruby Ridge and
Waco, and they certainly are not over on the left. I was sympathetic
to them because there's nothing worse than being descended on with the
gun and the badge and you're powerless to fight that kind of power.

Americans, you'd better listen because we're talking about Ken
Starr today, and you're hearing people make up information, make up
documentation. This could be your child, your wife, your friend
tomorrow who has found themselves in a very difficult situation with
an abusive prosecutor who will do whatever is necessary to convict
you. That's what this is all about. It's not simply about Bill
Clinton. This is about justice in America. How does the justice
system work? You don't know about it until you come in contact with
it.

But God forbid you get a Ken Starr or a Bob Barr. You don't ever want
that.

(Applause.)

REP. HYDE: That gentlelady's time has expired. The gentleman
from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.

REP. ED BRYANT (R-TN): Move to strike the last word.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's recognized for five minutes.

REP. BRYANT: I'm not sure if I can follow that presentation, but
I certainly have seen lawyers in court do worse.

In response to my friend, Bill Delahunt, who is a very
experienced, good prosecutor from Boston, we had a sort of a dangling
question there at the end. He had asked would I, as a prosecutor
myself, take this case to court. And I hear that this is a private
matter consistently, that this is just private matters, and it was to
an extent. Again, the U.S. attorney, the prosecutor from
Massachusetts doesn't handle divorce cases. And up to a point, that
was about all it would have been had anybody been interested in the
case.

But from the point in which it went from just allegations about
sex to an active cover-up, that's when it came into public domain and
when the law started being violated regarding perjury, obstruction of
justice and tampering with witnesses, hiding evidence. And you can
isolate these in a vacuum all you want and talk about them and take a
statement out of context and it sounds perfectly innocent, but you do
have to look at the big picture. You do. You don't throw away your
common sense. You have to look at the big picture, and you have to
look at the results.

And as I mentioned yesterday in my statement, just -- this point
about the job. This lady was aggressive. She tried for months to get
a job. She had friends in high places and could not get a job. But
low and behold, within 24 hours of signing an affidavit which
exonerated the president, she got the job, in New York with a Fortune
500 company.

The evidence was in her apartment one day, and then almost by
magic, it was in the president's personal secretary's house under the
bed, hidden, just there.

So you have to look at these things in a big picture. And you
can't ignore those. These things just don't happen by magic.

But in answering my friend's question, you have to look at
several issues, and I would be hard, he said, if this weren't the
president. But you have to look at it if this were another high-
elected official of something. If it were the everyday person, they
wouldn't have the opportunity to do the abuse, to perform the level of
abuse that occurred in this case.

So I think you have to look at it as a very visible person, a
person that, once this comes out, they're going to say, "Well, why
didn't you look at this person? Why didn't you prosecute this person?
Because he's famous? He's rich? He's powerful?"

So that is a special consideration.

In fact, that's in the U.S. attorney's manual. That was
discussed a little bit two days ago when we had this panel. And Ron
Nobles brought that up and said sometimes you have to send it to main
Justice to prosecute it because they're going to say, "Well, you know
this person and you're giving them special treatment." And so forth.

So you have to be extremely careful there, and especially
somebody like the president. I never had the opportunity to prosecute
the president, and I hope I never do. But the person who's the chief
law enforcement official, the fact that he brought other people into
this and caused other people to commit crimes, the fact there is a
cover-up here, the fact that you are vindicating the laws against
perjury and obstruction of justice vouchsafing, as Griffin Bell said,
the fact that all this lying and cover-up occurred in a sexual
harassment case, you have to vindicate that lawsuit. You have to
protect the rights of people to file these lawsuits because they're
difficult to file, they're difficult to prove.

So at the risk of being named an unreasonable prosecutor by a
couple of these folks who have testified here in the past, I would
have to say I would have carried this case to court.

And would yield back the balance of my time.

REP. HYDE: Thank the gentleman.

Anyone seek recognition?

REP. MEEHAN: Mr. Chairman?

REP. HYDE: Mr. Meehan?

REP. MEEHAN: Move to strike the last word.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

REP. MEEHAN: You know, Mr. Chairman, sitting here on this
article and listening back and forth for the last four hours or so,
there's an old joke that comes to mind when I hear the case for
Article III, and it goes something like this, to the best of my
memory.

A physicist, chemist and an economist are stranded on a desert
island. Now, there's little food on the island so they're all
starving. Suddenly a can of soup floats ashore. They're all elated
until they realize they don't have a can opener. Then the physicist
has an idea. He says, "You know, if you drop that rock over there at
a certain angle from a palm tree of a certain height on the top of the
can, it will pierce the top of the can and we can eat." The chemist
replies, "Well, that's interesting, but I have a better idea. We can
mix some of the sand over there with some of the salt water, ground up
the palm leaves, smear it -- the resulting paste -- on the top of the
can, leave it out in the sun and the top of the can will eventually
dissolve." Well the economist leaped up after listening to his
colleagues to speak on the subject, nodding his head. Finally the
economist said, "That's great stuff. But I think I know how to deal
with this. Assume a can opener." (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I call Article III the "assume a can opener"
article. Monica Lewinsky tells us no one asked her to lie, no one
promised her a job in return for her silence. Betty Currie tells us
that she didn't feel the slightest bit pressured when she spoke with
the president about her civil -- following his civil deposition. We
know that Ms. Currie wasn't a witness at the time. The job assistance
and the cover stories between the president and Ms. Lewinsky long pre-
dated Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in any way, shape or manner in the
Jones case. No one accuses the president of saying very much, if at
all, in response to Ms. Lewinsky's suggestions that the gifts be
concealed. No one testified that the president told Ms. Lewinsky to
file a false affidavit.

In short, there are no hard facts to support any obstruction of
justice charge. So in the absence of any hard facts, we just assume a
conspiracy. We assume implicit understandings. We assume subtle
suggestions, tacit agreements, bad intent. We assume a case from
nothing.

Mr. Chairman, there's a reason why few consider this article to
have any chance of approval on the House floor, even though its
central allegation, obstruction of justice, sounds much more serious
than mere perjury.

It is because there are no hard facts to support the charge, just
assumption after guess after inference. Not the stuff our Founding
Fathers anticipated for the constitutional equivalent of the atom
bomb.

I urge opposition to this clearly misguided, unproven article of
impeachment, and yield back the balance of my time.

REP. HYDE: Thank the gentleman.

Mr. Pease, the gentleman from Indiana.

REP. ED PEASE (R-IN): Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

REP. PEASE: And I yield two minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Coble.

REP. HOWARD COBLE (R-NC): I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
If you would, if you would yield to my friend, Mr. Watt, two minutes
and get me out of his dog house, I would be appreciative.

REP. PEASE: I would be pleased to. I yield to the gentleman
from North Carolina.

REP. MELVIN WATT (R-NC): I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me. I was on a roll at the time you-all interrupted me, and
you've given me a whole hour to cool off. (Laughter.) But I
appreciate the time anyway.

I was going to conclude my story, and it actually follows with
what Mr. Meehan said, because you can put all this stuff together if
you have a conspiratorial mind, and you can draw the conclusion that
the majority is drawing, but it just is not supported by any evidence.
I mean, you've got to do a lot of speculating.

Now, one of the things they're speculating about is that, well,
Vernon Jordan couldn't possibly get a job or try to get a job for
somebody as terrible, although reliable in her testimony, I would say,
as Ms. Lewinsky. And you should be aware that I have a member of my
staff who drove Mr. Jordan to the negotiations for the debate
preparations in the last campaign. In the process of getting there,
as he was parking, and Mr. Jordan was in the car, he backed into a
pedestrian. And Mr. Jordan has actually made several efforts to --
offers to try to get him a job. I mean, that's the kind of guy that
Mr. Jordan is.

Now, sure, it's not consistent with your theory that somebody
could just have an innocent motive, that they could be helping out
somebody.

But it's just as consistent that Mr. Jordan -- and I know him -- is
that kind of person.

But my point is that you are seeing these ghosts behind every
tree. And you know, you package all this stuff, as Mr. Meehan has
said, and you come to what appears to be a rationale conclusion, but
it's not very rationale.

But the question was is whether these cases would be prosecuted
if the president was an ordinary citizen. And I would just respond
very quickly that the ordinary citizen would have -- only be
considered from a standpoint of probable-cause proof, a very low
standard as to whether the prosecutor would bring charges.

We are looking at this as an impeachable offense, which we should
at a very high burden. So I think that we are looking at this much
closer than the average citizen would. And I think with an eyewitness
testimony, it would be a good case to bring forward.

REP. FRANK: Would the gentleman yield for a moment?

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

REP. FRANK: Could I ask unanimous consent that he be given one
additional minute to respond to my question?

REP. HYDE: Yes, one additional minute, if he chooses to.

REP. FRANK: Thank you.

REP. PEASE (?): I'd be happy to.

REP. FRANK: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. PEASE: Certainly.

REP. FRANK: Thank you.

You just said that if the president were an ordinary person, the
prosecutor would look at this only from a level of probable cause.
Yet we heard all these prosecutors say that, although you only need
probable cause for grand jury indictment, prosecutors look at a case
as to whether they'll prosecute it, and properly so, as to whether
they are likely to get a jury conviction. So they would be looking at
a much higher standard than probable cause. Isn't that correct?

REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, I heard that testimony, and it was
interesting. And I think that a prosecutor does look to see what the
likelihood of getting a conviction is. But I think also that when you
are talking about sexual abuse cases -- there are a lot of cases that
they are very tough to bring, but the interests of justice require it
to go forward.

And always, lots of times you don't know what is going to happen
with the jury. I think a prosecutor is in a little bit of trouble
whenever you start figuring out what a jury is going to do. You have
to look at this; and in your heart, if you believe this case has the
merit to go forward, it should. And let a jury determine that.

REP. HYDE: The question occurs on Article III.

REP. WEXLER: Mr. Chairman?

REP. HYDE: Oh, Mr. Wexler.

REP. WEXLER: Thank you. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to spend a little bit of time examining this
alleged, corrupt scheme to conceal evidence that the president
allegedly engaged in, and I use the word corrupt scheme to conceal
evidence because that's, of course, what is alleged in the articles of
impeachment, and to do so, I would like to employ what I think was a
noteworthy argument advanced by Mr. Barr just a couple of moments ago.
And if I understand Mr. Barr's argument correctly, it essentially went
that because the president is admittedly a smart, intelligent man,
that it is appropriate to infer or use circumstantial evidence
because, naturally, a smart, intelligent man would not create a chain
of evidence that so directly establishes that he obstructed justice.

I can buy that. That's a reasonable proposition.

So let's apply that proposition to the allegations against the
president. This smart, intelligent man, according to the president's
accusers, arranged on December 28th, earlier in the day, with a
corrupt motive, to retrieve all the gifts that he gave to Monica
Lewinsky. And this intelligent, smart man apparently was so taken by
his incredibly wise retrieval of the gifts that he wanted to up the
stakes later in the day. He gave her some more gifts! So earlier, on
December 28th, the president, with corrupt mind, said, "Here, we're
going to create this big scheme to take back the gifts." And that
same intelligent man, later on in the day, so taken with himself,
said, "Here's some more gifts." I guess he just wanted to do it all
over again in a couple of days so he could do that same corrupt scheme
to get them back. It just doesn't make sense.

And then let's look at the job quest -- so-called "we're going to
keep Monica on the team" I think it was explained by either Mr.
Schippers or someone else -- we've got to keep Monica on the team,
we've got to get her a job!

But of course they've got to get over one tremendous hurdle -- the job
search started long before Monica Lewinsky was ever on the witness
list. So knowing that, creatively the president's accusers, they say,
well the job search itself wasn't an impeachable event, that wasn't
corrupt; what was corrupt was when the president intensified the job
search. The job search that started for months, well that was okay;
it was just when he got serious about it, when he intensified it, it
became impeachable.

But this same smart man, this same intelligent man, who
apparently thought it was so important to keep Monica Lewinsky on the
team, he never thought to get her a job at the White House like she
wanted. (Snapping his fingers) How'd he miss that one? So that's
this intelligent man that concocted this extraordinary scheme to
conceal evidence and get a job, but he forgot two things -- he didn't
conceal any evidence because he gave it back to her, and he forgot to
get her a job.

Ladies and gentlemen, does anybody reasonably believe that this
is what we impeach a president of the United States over? This is as
circumstantial as it gets. This employs the ability of reading
somebody's mind. And we have now concluded that in order to get us
the impeachable evidence, this intelligent president, this intelligent
president did some extraordinarily stupid things. And that is now the
basis of his obstruction of justice count.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, is
recognized for five minutes.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you very much, Chairman.

Well we've heard a lot tonight about these seven parts of the
obstruction of justice article, and I think it is important for us to
keep in mind a couple of things. One is I wish, as one of the members
on the other side had said earlier, the record did show that all of
this was made up. But unfortunately, it is not made up and nobody's
made it up. It's before us and we have to deal with it, and that's
why we're here tonight.

Secondly, I think it's important to remember that this is the
article we discussed earlier in the day that originally came forward
saying "one or more of the following." There are seven of them. Not
every one of them may rise to the same level of proof that the others
do. The strict version that we have to send something forward to
trial, as has been stated tonight, is "probable cause." I happen to
think we need to have a little higher than that, and most of us do,
and I think "clear and convincing" has been more or less the general
standard most of us agreed to.

A couple of these seven I think go beyond that. I would say that I'm
convinced from the evidence that we have before us that if I were on a
jury, I would convict the president beyond a reasonable doubt. But
all of them are clear and convincing, and surely to any reasonable
person there would be probably cause to take these to trial for crimes
if you were going to take these to trial before a jury.

Now, let's look at this. We're not surmising about this, as
somebody said earlier. We're talking now about, yes, some
circumstantial evidence. I don't know many crimes that are committed
in this country that are taken to trial, of any sort or type, in which
there is not circumstantial evidence. Most of them involve that. And
a great many of them have only circumstantial evidence. There aren't
too many cases of murder where you have the eye witness, at least
where you have a trial. Usually you have somebody who is going to
plead to that. Where you actually have to go to trial, you don't
usually have the goods from the eye witness there; you have
circumstantial evidence.

What we have today is very compelling circumstantial evidence.
We know the president of the United States was facing a lawsuit, a
civil suit we've talked about a lot tonight, a sexual harassment civil
rights suit. He was worried about that suit, no doubt. And again,
whether you agree with Paula Jones' right to bring the suit or whether
or not he should have been required to testify, the courts ruled he
did, and he had to go forward and testify.

Now, long before that came up and long before Monica Lewinsky was
subpoenaed, we know that there was an agreement between the president
and Monica Lewinsky that if they were ever asked, they would lie about
the relationship. That's a fact. A certain period of time goes by.
There is that famous call on the night of December 17th after the
president learns Monica is on the witness list, and they have the
discussion that's very clear. And I think this is one of the
strongest, it's the very first one of the seven obstruction of justice
charges that are in this article.

On that night, they have this discussion about the fact she's
going to be a witness, and she's worried about it. And she says to
the president, What do I do about it? And he suggests that she might
file an affidavit. And in that discussion he suggests she might use
the cover stories -- which, by the way, form the basis for the second
obstruction of justice charge. Well, you could always tell them that
Betty, you know, was the reason you came down here and so forth.

At any rate, both of them knew that night that it was going to be
a false affidavit. It didn't have to be explicitly stated. They
talked about cover stories that night. And Monica Lewinsky said, in a
sworn statement to the grand jury when asked about all of this, when
she did say, of course, that the president didn't tell me to lie, but
he did suggest things that would lead me to believe that he expected
we were going to. And she says, quote, "It wasn't as if the president
called me and said, `You know, Monica, you're on the witness list,
this is going to be really hard for us, we're going to have to tell
the truth and be humiliated in front of the entire world about what
we've done,' which I probably would have fought him on, probably.
That was different.

And by him not calling me and saying that, you know, I knew what that
meant." Unquote.

Now that's what she's testified to, and that's very consistent
with the circumstances we're in here, in this situation. So I'm
convinced, myself, beyond a reasonable doubt -- and I think it would
be pretty easy for a prosecutor to convince a jury -- that the
president indeed obstructed justice with regard to suggesting this
affidavit, expecting it to be false.

But that isn't the end of the story. Moving very rapidly in that
process, you know, on the 18th -- I should say on the 19th of December
-- that was on the 17th -- the president -- I shouldn't say the
president -- Monica Lewinsky received a subpoena for the gifts that
we've talked about, and in that subpoena was a very explicit request
for any dresses or hat pins and so forth that the president might have
given her. "And it screamed out at me," she said, the hat pin, which
was the first gift that had been given to her. And so she then tries
to make some contact with the president. He has indicated he wants to
give her more gifts, and finally, after Christmas, on December 28th,
she goes into a meeting with the president and has that meeting in
which he is going to give her the gifts that's so famous that's been
discussed.

In that meeting -- in that meeting, she says, Mr. President, the
hat pin is here. This is a big problem, it's been subpoenaed. And
she's worried about it. Well, he says -- you know, she says, maybe I
ought to give this to Betty Currie. Maybe we ought to give the gifts
and the packages up. And he says, let me think about it, or words to
that effect.

That very day, on December 28th -- Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask
your -- unanimous consent for three additional minutes to wrap this
up.

REP. HYDE: Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
three additional minutes.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you.

On December 28th, again that very same day that the president and
Monica have this discussion where she gets the Christmas gifts and
where she came to discuss this with the president about what do I do
with the gifts, she goes home and Betty Currie calls her. Now there
are circumstances we've discussed earlier about this, but the fact is
we have the record showing Betty Currie made a call on that date --
despite all of the other disputes -- to Monica Lewinsky. And there's
no question that she then picks up the gifts. Heavy circumstantial
evidence, but I think it all fits into the big pattern, the big
picture that's here.

Time is passing. About this time, by the way, Vernon Jordan gets
cooking looking for a job. He'd been asked by Monica Lewinsky a long
time before all of this to look for a job. She'd suggested that to
him a long time ago -- remember what Mr. Schippers told us about
yesterday when we went through that whole sequence of events? But he
didn't really do anything about it until, lo and behold, on January
7th, she finally signs the affidavit which he's been aware of she has
been preparing. She has been going around, talking with him a lot
about the hat pin and so forth. Once she signed it on January 7th, lo
and behold, on January 8th, just coincidentally, he calls Mr. Perlman
at Revlon, and she has a job. Bang, just like that.

That's why the obstruction of justice charge is in here for that.
The coincidences aren't coincidences; they're a pattern.

On the 17th of January the president testifies -- the famous
deposition over which we've passed perjury and articles of impeachment
charges. And just after that, he calls Betty Currie -- remember, he
had explicitly told her that -- or explicitly said that she had things
she could tell to the court in that deposition. So he calls her and
has her come over the next day, and that's when he reads off the
litany that's in one of these obstruction of justice charges down
there -- the list -- one, two, three, four.

Now, some people say she was never a witness. I want to make a
final point on this one -- very important point. And that is that
courts have ruled that the solicitation of false testimony from a
prospective witness may provide the basis for a conviction of
obstruction of justice. In a court case I'm sitting here reading from
in Federal Circuit Court, the defendant tried to induce two witnesses
to provide a false alibi. Neither individual had been subpoenaed and
neither had any intention of testifying. The court went on to say,
"Any corrupt behavior to influence any party or witness, whether
successful or not, in this situation constitutes obstruction of
justice, prohibited by the law."

So whether Betty Currie was a witness or not a witness, the
president certainly had reason to believe that she was going to be,
she was truly a prospective witness in that case, and I believe that
is one of the most compelling "beyond a reasonable doubt" obstruction
of justice charges that are in this particular article of impeachment,
Article IV (sic).

And then after all that, beyond that --

REP. : Article III.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Article III. Excuse me.

Beyond this, the president went on to talk to his -- two days
later, and so forth, to his Cabinet, to his White House aides, telling
them even bigger whoppers about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky
than he had told to the court in the days before that.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's --

REP. MCCOLLUM: So it's a picture that's wrapped up. I think
it's clear; it's clear and convincing, Mr. Chairman, and I believe
that Article III should go forward to the trial and we should pass
that article of impeachment --

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

REP. MCCOLLUM: It's clear and convincing to me.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.

REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you. I would like to step away from the
lawyer minutiae -- you could call it other things -- and try to put
some of this in perspective.

What's going on? What's going on here in the House Judiciary
Committee? The Republican majority is trying to impeach the sitting
president of the United States. That's what's going on right now.
They've already passed two articles of impeachment to impeach the
sitting president of the United States, now they're on Article III of
impeachment.

Now what's the Constitution have to say about this? The --
(aside) -- gentlemen! (Returning) The Constitution says that a
president can only be removed on the showing of treason, bribery or
other high crimes and misdemeanors. It doesn't say you can remove a
president for bad behavior. It doesn't say you can remove a president
for having bad character. Some of those ideas were thrown around in
the 1700s but were rejected by the drafters of the Constitution who
said, you know, we want a strong presidency for four years.

That's what's given our country stability for a long time, that we
can't remove our president whenever the majority party in the Congress
says so. The people say so every four years whether the president
stays. They say the president committed impeachable offenses. I
believe that anyone who wants to impeach the sitting president of the
United States must bear the burden of proving it.

Okay, so what's the appropriate burden of proof? Clear and
convincing evidence. So, who brought the proof? We had Judge Starr
come forth, who was not an eye witness to anything. He admitted that
many times. We had Mr. Schippers come forth, who is a lawyer who
summarized his inferences and conclusions from transcripts of other
people's testimony, people who were never cross-examined. So you had
those bunch of lawyers bring the case for impeachment.

Then you had another bunch of lawyers on the other side defending
the president -- Kendall, Ruff and Lowell -- who refuted and rebutted
every single allegation of impeachable offense raised by the accusing
set of lawyers. And that's what we've got. We had a bunch of
historians say, most of them say, these would never be impeachable
offenses. We had a bunch of Democratic and Republican former
prosecutors who said none of these things would be indictable, we
would never indict for any of these. And then you had the American
people, who say, hey, we've heard this for a long time, all the
details, we don't think this is impeachable.

You know who wasn't before us? Not one single fact witness. So
you've got all of these neutralizing lawyer talk -- some say he did
it, some said he didn't -- all arguing from inference. Not one fact
witness brought before us. And they say we're convinced by a clear
and convincing standard, when all of the lawyers disagreed with each
other and not one fact witness came forth.

Is that the basis on which we're going to overturn our last
election of the presidency? For the third time in American history,
we're going to impeach a president without a reading of the burden of
proof? Some say, well, we have to uphold the rule of law. Well, what
rule of law? If the president lied in a civil deposition, there were
civil courts to enforce it. Maybe that's why he paid $850,000 civil
court settlement, because he knew he would pay a big fine in the civil
courts. They upheld the civil court rule of law.

The criminal courts can sue the president, and he can go to
prison once he leaves office, if he committed perjury and any criminal
offenses. So there the rule of law does apply to this president, just
like every other American. But what we're talking about is not
upholding the civil law or criminal law. We've got civil courts and
criminal courts to do those. We're talking about whether the third
punishment should be imposed, impeachment. But it is a punishment
that is imposed upon the nation, the people who elected this
president. And I dare say, where you have no one who came forth as a
fact witness and have competing neutralizing lawyer talk to defend and
rebut every allegation of impeachment, and most Americans say it's not
impeachable, most historians say it's not impeachable, most
prosecutors say they wouldn't p[prosecute, that they haven't met their
burden of proof.

Now, I was there when the president waved his finger on TV at us
and said he didn't have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, and I've
got kids and I think lying is wrong and I teach my kids not to lie.

And that adulterous, wrongful behavior, in my White House, was wrong.
And I believe the president should be punished for lying to the
American people. I don't need to hear from the eyewitnesses. I was
an eyewitness to those offenses, and so I would be willing to censure
the president for what I know, with my own eyes and ears, took place
and what he admitted to. When he waved his finger at us and said no
sexual relations, and he wasn't under any civil deposition definition
of sexual relations at that time, he was just talking to us on TV, he
lied to us and should be punished for that and censured for that as
well as having the affair with the intern in the White House.

But let us not forget that there has been no meeting of any
reasonable burden of proof on any of the allegations -- none of them
-- and they're about to approve the third article of impeachment
against our sitting president for the -- only the third time in
American history. The America people must tell their representatives
in Congress if they don't think this president should be impeached
because no reasonable burden of proving his guilt has been
established. They must stop what will be one of the saddest moments
in American history from taking place -- the removal of a sitting
United States president on no -- with no reasonable proof.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.

REP. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clear and convincing -- clear and convincing -- clear and
convincing. We all agree that that's the standard that must be met.

Paragraph number 6 -- "On or about January 18th and 20th, 21st
1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account
of events relevant to a federal civil rights action brought against
him to a potential witness in that proceeding in order to corruptly
influence the testimony of that witness."

We're talking about Betty Currie. He's going to influence her in
that proceeding. Never mind that the period of discovery is going to
end several days from there and that she's not on the witness list.
Clear and convincing? I don't know.

Let's look at the evidence.

"I was never really alone with Monica, right?" "You were always
there when Monica was there, right?" "Monica came on to me, and I
never touched her, right?" "You could see and hear everything,
right?" "She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that."

Is that clear and convincing evidence that he was trying to
influence here testimony in that proceeding? I don't think so.

But there's more. It's not just that proof, you've got to have
some other proof.

This is from Mr. Schipper's report. "He made sure that this was
a face-to-face meeting, not an impersonal telephone call. He made
sure that no one else was present when he spoke to her. He made sure
that he had the meeting in his office, an area where he was
comfortable and could utilize its power and prestige to influence
future testimony."

Clear and convincing? You could have also said, "They met at the
office." Because that's what happened, they met at the office. He
worked in the Oval Office, she worked outside. How often does the
boss come out to the desk? Usually the boss says to the person, "Come
on in." That's what usually happens. Clear and convincing? I don't
know.

But there's more. The president has an explanation for this. "I
thought we were going to be deluged by the press comments because we
had entered the eye of the hurricane here." He had given his
testimony in the deposition in the Paula Jones suit. Of course, as we
all know and as, again, the report indicates, the president had an
option. He could have said nothing. This is what Mr. Schippers says:
"He could abide by Judge Wright's order to remain silent and not
divulge any details of his deposition." Would have made a lot of
sense. Presumably, of course, the other side is going to do the same;
there would never be any leaks coming from the other side in the Paula
Jones suit.

And so the president, the only motive he would have would be to
influence her testimony in a lawsuit in which the discovery period was
about to end. But the reality is the president knew what was going
on. The president knew even when he was taking that deposition
because he knew that his political opponents were paying for that
lawsuit. He knew that. And he knew there were going to be leaks.
Now, maybe he was paranoid or maybe he wasn't.

January 22, 1998 was a Thursday. NBC Nightly News -- the
transcript: "NBC News has learned that the president did admit to
sleeping with Gennifer Flowers in his Saturday statement to Jones'
lawyers, but the president believes that does not constitute a long
affair." Now how did that come out? How did that come out? I don't
think the president did that. Did that come out from Paula Jones'
side?

Could it be possible that the president thought that he was going
to be asked, or Betty Currie was going to be asked questions about

Monica Lewinsky? I think it's entirely possible. I think that he
knew what was coming. And maybe he did want her to lie, maybe he
wanted her to lie to the press -- maybe he wanted her to lie to the
press because he didn't want the press to know that he had an
inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The Republicans would have you believe that that's clear and
convincing evidence.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is not clear and convincing evidence.
Maybe, maybe not.

Yield back the balance of my time.

REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman. The chair yields himself two
minutes. I just want to say people watching this on television might
get the wrong idea that we're -- if we pass these articles of
impeachment, we're throwing the president out of office. That's
exactly not true.

REP. BARRETT: Point of information -- or point of -- if I could
make a point.

REP. HYDE: Point of interruption. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

REP. BARRETT: Point of interruption.

REP. HYDE: Yes.

REP. BARRETT: If I could just read, "Wherefore," from the first
article, "Wherefore William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct
warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office."

REP. HYDE: Well, you understand we don't do the trial in the
House.

REP. BARRETT: I understand that. But --

REP. HYDE: You understand the trial occurs in the other body.

REP. BARRETT: I understand that.

REP. HYDE: What we do is we find whether there is enough
evidence to warrant submission to the Senate for them to conduct the
trial and for them to impose whatever sanction they choose by a two-
thirds vote. That's the process. And our founding fathers were very
wise to have the accusatory body not be the adjudicatory body.

So all -- you may leave the room -- all we -- (laughter/applause)
-- yes, Miss Waters? What is it?

REP. WATERS: I don't want you to be frightened when I want to
engage you. I want you to stand up for what you believe in. Now let
talk.

REP. HYDE: I'm trying.

REP. WATERS: Mr. Chairman --

REP. HYDE: I'm trying.

REP. WATERS: -- I do not want you to use your awesome power to
send a message to the citizens of this country that we're not involved
in a most extraordinary effort that leads to the impeachment of the
president of the United States of America. This is the significant
part.

REP. HYDE: Well, I'd like to --

REP. WATERS: You are getting the ball rolling here in this
committee.

REP. HYDE: -- I'd like to take back my time, and I get the
gentlelady's message. I'm not saying what we do is insignificant. I
think it is highly significant and portentious and requires great care
and great study and great analysis. But I am suggesting to the
gentlelady, we do not conduct that trial. We merely decide whether
there is enough evidence now.

We get on the question of evidence, and I've heard repeatedly,
especially from the gentleman near the end of the first row, that they
didn't have a chance to test the credibility of any witnesses. Well,
we accepted 60,000 pages of transcripts, grand jury transcripts,
depositions, statements under oath, all under oath. We accepted
Monica Lewinsky's testimony because it was given under a grant of
immunity that would be declared null and void if she lied.

So we were willing to accept all of that testimony under oath, and if
the Democrats wanted to question it, why in the world didn't they
invite these people up to testify under oath --

REP. ROTHMAN: Point of personal privilege?

REP. HYDE: -- and undergo the withering cross-examination of
several of your lawyers.

REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

REP. HYDE: Please let me finish.

REP. FRANK: I thought you were. I apologize.

REP. HYDE: I'm on a roll now, and -- (laughter) -- as soon as
I'm through, I'll -- why didn't you call them in for deposition? Why
didn't you put them to the crucible of cross-examination? You had
that opportunity, but you chose to bring us professors, historians and
law deans, which is wonderful and entertaining and illuminating. But
when you say that you didn't have a chance to test their credibility
--

REP. ROTHMAN: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: -- that rings a little hollow.

REP. ROTHMAN: Point of personal privilege.

REP. HYDE: Well, I'll let you stretch it that far, but I didn't
mention your name.

REP. ROTHMAN: Well, you meant me. (Laughter.)

REP. HYDE: Well, I did mean you. All right. (Laughter.)

REP. ROTHMAN: You did. And thank you for that.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak on this point of
personal privilege.

First of all, you keep saying 60,000 documents. Well, the 60,000
documents were about civil deposition and grand jury testimony where
nobody was cross-examined.

REP. GOODLATTE: Regular order, Mr. Chairman. This is not a
point of personal privilege.

In my judgment, what the Republican majority would have us do is
turn American fairness and due process on its head. They want the
accused, President Clinton, to prove his innocence. What they brought
to prove the case against him are two lawyers -- Judge Starr and Mr.
Schippers -- arguing inference and conclusions from portions of
transcripts of depositions and grand jury testimony. The Democrats
responded --

REP. HYDE: I'm going to have to retrieve my time.

REP. ROTHMAN: -- with lawyer talk. They say that's --

REP. HYDE: Mr. Rothman, may I regain my time.

That's really not so. That testimony has been taken. It's under
oath, under penalty of perjury. I know the oath may be a matter of
some question with some of us, but we think the oath is significant.
And we were willing to accept that. And if you questioned it, you had
every opportunity to do that.

Now I swing to Mr. --

REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ROTHMAN: I would say that you unreasonably accepted a low
burden of proof that didn't constitute clear and convincing evidence.

REP. HYDE: That's your --

REP. ROTHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: That's your opinion.

The gentleman from Massachusetts.

REP. FRANK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your swinging my way -- (laughter) -- and I -- I --
the chairman said he would swing to me --

REP. : Regular order.

REP. : Regular order, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

REP. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I only -- I only quote you, Mr.
Chairman, but I -- I do now -- I do want to take serious issue with a
profound point. I really do think that we have a series of issues
here, and I -- we will rejoin it later, but I didn't want to let it go
undiscussed now.

I was struck, Mr. Chairman, by your statement that we're not here
throwing the president out. I must say, to the extent that I wasn't
clear what the public perception is of what we're doing, I am
inferring from your disavowal that this is -- as much as any member of
the House can do to get the president out of office, that there is
some uneasiness about it. And I have to say I think it is a grave
error constitutionally to denigrate what we are doing. Yes, it is
true that as a consequence of this the president will not be instantly
thrown out of office. It is also true that the only justification and
basis for this proceeding and that only basis on which members can
honestly vote for these articles is their conviction that the
president ought to be thrown out of office. And I think there is a
tendency that we have seen over the past few months to try to lighten
up impeachment and to take as profound an instrument as can exist in a
democratic society -- the cancellation of an election by people not
themselves the electorate -- and it has to be there from time to time
-- but to reduce its impact that way or at least to reduce our part in
it, that's I think one of the most important philosophical differences
between us.

REP. HYDE: I hear the gentleman, and it is a respectable point
of view, but I thoroughly disagree with it. I think you denigrate the
role of the Senate, which has the important adjudicatory role to weigh
the evidence, to study what it wants and agree and disagree, and then
our founding fathers made it extraordinarily difficult to eliminate a
president from office by requiring a two-thirds vote, and that's why I
have always said unless this is done bipartisanly -- and tragically
there is no bipartisanship here -- but I'm hopeful if, if it gets to
the Senate, there would be bipartisanship. But absent that, there
will be no --

REP. SCHUMER: May God help other presidents.

REP. : Mr. Chairman?

REP. : Will the gentleman yield?

REP. SCHUMER: God help other presidents, Mr. Chairman.

REP. : Would the gentleman yield?

REP. : Mr. Chairman?

REP. : Mr. Chairman, regular order.

REP. SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman, as somebody who doesn't want to
denigrate the Senate, probably more than anybody else on this
committee --

REP. : Mr. Chairman?

REP. HYDE: I -- I think it's --

REP. : Regular order.

REP. HYDE: I think it's a sad greeting to you as you come over
there to a denigrated body.

REP. SCHUMER: What I want to say is, I just do want to
underscore -- first, I do think, by the way, if, God forbid, this gets
to the Senate it will be bipartisan, it will be a bipartisan vote
against removing the president, with a small number of Republicans
voting for it.

But my point is similar to Mr. Frank's. I was sitting in the
ante room there, and as somebody who has such respect for you, I was
just shocked almost that you would, as we close this hearing, say,
"Now don't worry, folks, we're not getting rid of the president right
here" when it seems that the majority, in all of these hearings and
with these articles has endeavored to do everything it can to get rid
of the president. So because you have a few more hurdles to overcome,
please! To the public it is perfectly clear, I hope, that should the
mechanism, the very serious mechanism, the used only twice in 200
years mechanism, that the chairman and his colleagues seek to unleash,
if it rolls in the direction they seek, the president will be gone,
and that's what they want!

REP. HYDE: Well, the gentleman --

REP. SCHUMER: That is indeed what they want!

REP. HYDE: Senator? No, Senator --

REP. SCHUMER: I yield back.

REP. HYDE: Now I have been very indulgent. We've had a seminar
here. I think it's important for the public to understand the
constitutional provisions of the function of the House and the
function of the Senate, which has been blurred over, and that is my
point.

REP. : Mr. Chairman?

REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman?

REP. HYDE: Now, the gentleman from -- okay, Mr. Rogan.

REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

REP. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, echoing the comments of the chair a
moment ago, talking about the importance of the public to understand
the constitutional function, I too think that is important, and I
think that that is something that has been somewhat misconstrued, in
fact greatly misconstrued, over these last days.

We keep hearing about the sanctity of the election process to the
Constitution. And I have no quarrel with that. But the election is
not the only constitutional process that guarantees us having a
president taking office and serving office. The fact that a person is
elected to the office of the presidency of the United States does not
allow them to take the office of the presidency and to assume those
powers. There is a prerequisite. Even after an election, the
Constitution requires that before the elected person may become the
president, they must take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.

And even after that oath is taken, they still are not allowed to
remain in office if that oath is violated and the Congress finds that
impeachable offenses have occurred. The same Constitution that gives
us the electoral process, that gives us the oath also gives us the
process for removal of the president when they violate that oath. And
it gives us the process of replacing that president with another
popularly elected official, in this case, the vice president.

Dr. Larry Arne (ph) has written on this subject, and I'd like to
just read for the record briefly an excerpt of his latest open letter
to Congress, which addresses this point directly.

"A point has been made that it is a serious matter to overturn an
election. True enough. But elections have no higher standing under
our Constitution than the impeachment process. Both stem from
provisions of the Constitution. The people elect a president to do a
constitutional job. They act under the Constitution when they do it.
At the same time, they elect a Congress to do a different
constitutional job. The president swears an oath to uphold the
Constitution. So does the Congress. Everyone concerned is acting in
ways subordinate to the Constitution both in elections and in the
impeachment process.

"If a president is guilty of acts justifying impeachment, then
he, not the Congress will have overturned the election. He will have
acted in ways that betray the purpose of the election. He will have
acted not as a constitutional representative, but as a monarch,
subversive of or above the law.

"If the great powers given the president are abused, then to
impeach him defends not only the results of the election, but that
higher thing of which elections are in service: namely, the
preeminence of the Constitution as the institution under which we
pursue the security of our rights. We are all subordinate to that."

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

REP. CANNON: Mr. Chairman, I have a request for unanimous
consent.

REP. HYDE: Yes, Mr. Cannon?

REP. CANNON: I request unanimous consent to submit into the
record an article from George magazine entitled, "Sidney Strikes
Again." This is an article about Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, who
has a controversial reputation for planting favorable Clinton stories
in the press, helped the historians -- that's the 400 historians --
create the ad that recently got some publicity. So if I can submit
that, I'd appreciate it.

REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered.

Now I'm going to go down the line. Mr. Berman. This is for a
unanimous consent request? For what purpose do you seek recognition?

REP. HOWARD BERMAN (D-CA): To strike the last word.

REP. HYDE: You've always spoken, I'm told.

REP. BERMAN: Not in two articles. In Article I, I spoke.

REP. HYDE: We have it down that you spoke on Article III. Well,
those are our records. Want to tell me after --

REP. BERMAN: I'd like to see clear and convincing evidence of
that. (Laughter.)

REP. HYDE: Clear and convincing.

Who else? For what purpose does Mr. Berman seek recognition?

REP. BERMAN: To strike the last word.

REP. HYDE: No, I'm sorry, you --

REP. BERMAN: No, I'm sorry. This is a factual dispute, but I'm
willing to go under oath. I have not spoken on Article III.

REP. BERMAN: All right. Because my friend, the chairman, had
said it like he was giving me a second five minutes, and I just wanted
to make sure that we understand.

My only point here is, I think if the chairman had said, "People
understand by the result of the action we are doing today, the
president will not be removed from office, but I and all the others
who are voting of these articles of impeachment want the president
removed from office, are voting for a resolution which says that these
articles warrant impeachment and trial and removal from office and a
bar to office in the future," that that would have been a more
accurate statement. I just think we should get away from the notion
that this is some kind of prosecutorial probable cause, we're just
kicking it over to the Senate for a trial.

I have heard a number of my colleagues on the other side say very
sincerely that they are not taking their role as a grand jury, they
are seeking -- they are applying standards of evidence like "clear and
convincing," and they believe that it justifies the impeachment, the
conviction, the removal from office.

That's what the resolution says, and I think that's -- I think that's
the accurate conclusion to conclude from people's support of these
articles of impeachment.

I yield back.

REP. HYDE: Thank the gentleman. Who else is seeking -- Mr.
Scott? For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

REP. SCOTT: I would ask unanimous consent to speak out of order
for two minutes.

REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered.

REP. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was astounded by what -- some of what was said about our role.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey wasn't the
only one that's been insisting on fact witnesses. We can't -- we
couldn't call fact witnesses because we didn't know the allegations
and the allegations that we knew were not impeachable, but the fact is
that the record reflects that a motion was defeated on a party-line
vote that would have provided for fact witnesses to be called after
the allegations had been ascertained. That motion was defeated on a
party-line vote.

And look at the evidence we've got. We think it's, quote, "under
oath," but the under oath only reflects answers to questions selected
by prosecutors, answers not subject to cross-examination nor answers
which were subject to any refuting by others.

Mr. Chairman, the rule of law prevents us from doing what you're
trying to do here by trying to remove the president from office. Most
of the debate that the Founding Fathers participated in in setting the
impeachment article in the Constitution -- most of the debate was how
to keep Congress from doing it. It wasn't how to get the president
out of office. You had this provision -- it would be too easy, that
provision, that would be too easy. They ended up with treason,
bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors -- a very high
standard. In the words of the counsel, "it's for traitors and
felons." And not all felons would even qualify for that.

So I -- Mr. Chairman, we are removing the president from office.
The resolution is clear, that wherefore William Jefferson Clinton, by
such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal -- that's
what we're voting on, and people ought to be exactly clear of what's
going on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

REP. HYDE: Thank the gentleman.

The question occurs on Article III. All those in favor signify
by saying "Aye."

(Chorus of Ayes.)

REP. HYDE: All opposed say "No."

(Chorus of Noes.)

REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: In the opinion of the chair, we're going to have a
roll call. Clerk will call the roll.

REP. CONYERS: Request a roll-call vote.

CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner.

REP. SENSENBRENNER: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes "Aye."

Mr. McCollum.

REP. MCCOLLUM: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. McCollum votes "Aye."

Mr. Gekas.

REP. GEKAS: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Gekas votes "Aye."

Mr. Coble

REP. COBLE: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Coble votes "Aye."

Mr. Smith.

REP. SMITH: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Smith votes "Aye."

Mr. Gallegly.

REP. GALLEGLY: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Gallegly votes "Aye."

Mr. Canady.

REP. CANADY: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Canady votes "Aye."

Mr. Inglis.

REP. INGLIS: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Inglis votes "Aye."

Mr. Goodlatte.

REP. GOODLATTE: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Goodlatte votes "Aye."

Mr. Buyer.

REP. BUYER: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Buyer votes "Aye."

Mr. Bryant.

REP. BRYANT: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Bryant votes "Aye."

Mr. Chabot.

REP. CHABOT: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Chabot votes "Aye."

Mr. Barr.

REP. BARR: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Barr votes "Aye."

Mr. Jenkins.

REP. JENKINS: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Jenkins votes "Aye."

Mr. Hutchinson.

REP. HUTCHINSON: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Hutchinson votes "Aye."

Mr. Pease.

REP. PEASE: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Pease votes "Aye."

Mr. Cannon.

REP. CANNON: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Cannon votes "Aye."

Mr. Rogan.

REP. ROGAN: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Rogan votes "Aye."

Mr. Graham.

REP. GRAHAM: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Graham votes "Aye."

CLERK: Ms. Bono.

REP. BONO: Aye.

CLERK: Ms. Bono votes "Aye."

Mr. Conyers.

REP. CONYERS: No.

CLERK: Mr. Conyers votes "No."

Mr. Frank.

REP. FRANK: No.

CLERK: Mr. Frank votes "No."

Mr. Schumer.

REP. SCHUMER: No.

CLERK: Mr. Schumer votes "No."

Mr. Berman

REP. BERMAN: No.

CLERK: Mr. Berman votes "No."

Mr. Boucher.

REP. BOUCHER: No.

CLERK: Mr. Boucher votes "No."

Mr. Nadler.

REP. NADLER: No.

CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes "No."

Mr. Scott.

REP. SCOTT: No.

CLERK: Mr. Scott votes "No."

Mr. Watt.

REP. WATT: No.

CLERK: Mr. Watt votes "No."

Ms. Lofgren.

REP. LOFGREN: No.

CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes "No."

Ms. Jackson Lee.

REP. JACKSON LEE: No.

CLERK: Ms. Jackson Lee votes "No."

Ms. Waters.

REP. WATERS: No.

CLERK: Ms. Waters votes "No."

Mr. Meehan.

REP. MEEHAN: No.

CLERK: Mr. Meehan votes "No."

Mr. Delahunt

REP. DELAHUNT: No.

CLERK: Mr. Delahunt votes "No."

Mr. Wexler.

REP. WEXLER: No.

CLERK: Mr. Wexler votes "No."

Mr. Rothman.

REP. ROTHMAN: No.

CLERK: Mr. Rothman votes "No."

Mr. Barrett.

REP. BARRETT: No.

CLERK: Mr. Barrett votes "No."

Mr. Hyde.

REP. HYDE: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Hyde votes "Aye."

REP. HYDE: The clerk will report.

CLERK: Mr. Chairman, there are 21 Ayes and 16 Noes.

REP. HYDE: And the article is agreed to, and the committee
stands in recess until 9:00 A.M. tomorrow morning.